Urban Ecoist

Lately, a lot of environmentally minded folks are touting the train as the best way to travel. As airplanes and automobiles spew out nasty carbon emissions, the train seems like our next best hope to combat climate change, right?

I’ve decided to test out this premise that you and I could save the world by taking the train instead of flying. And truthfully, the numbers are not adding up to create a significant benefit for taking the train. According to Carbonfund.org, the carbon dioxide produced by an individual over 100,000 air miles is approximately 42,000 pounds of CO2, Geez, that seems like a lot, about 0.42 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per mile traveled.

Now, let’s look at the same 100,000 miles by train. Again, getting our numbers from Carbonfund, 100,000 miles by train will produce a touch more than 44,000 lbs CO2. Wait. That’s more than the damn plane. We’ll put that down for 0.44 lbs CO2/mile.

But wait, that figure for plane travel does not take into account radiative forcing, which is the increased effect of carbon in the higher altitudes. Most people estimate radiative forcing as increasing the efficacy (or warming effect) of carbon emissions by 2.7 — the numbers vary a bit lower and higher depending on who you talk to, but since I’m using Carbonfund’s numbers, I’m also going to use their radiative forcing number of 2.7.

Once you factor in the increase in global warming power that carbon gets when it’s high enough, the 100,000 miles on an airplane now produces 113,400 pounds of carbon dioxide, or 1.13 lbs CO2 per mile traveled. Ouch.

So let’s look at a specific trip, say across the US, from Seattle to Miami round-trip. Going by train is actually going to be a longer trip in terms of mileage (and yes, of course, time) coming in at 7381 miles. That would produce 1.41 tons of CO2 (2820 lbs). Dividing the carbon over the distance gives us 0.38 lbs of CO2 per mile. That same trip on an airplane (5474 miles) produces just shy of 1 ton if you don’t factor in that pesky radiative forcing. But the reality of carbon in the upper atmosphere means that the trip from SeaTac to Miami is really producing what amounts to 2.66 tons of carbon dioxide, which gives us a whopping 0.97 lbs of CO2 per mile.

However, the so-called environmentally-friendly train comes with a cost, both monetarily and time-wise. Let’s say we do take that trip from Seattle to Miami — it would take 3 and a half days, going through Chicago, then Washington DC on the way to Miami. It would cost $672 round-trip according to Amtrak, and that is only for a coach reserved seat. Add in a sleeping car and the new total is over $2,000 and that is only for a “roomette” and only on the longer spans of the trip. $2000 — are you kidding me? Not to mention that money you will spend on food and beverages during the seven days you will spend on the train.

I think I will continue to fly and use the savings to offset my travels. And trust me, I’m as granola as you can get, but come on, spending seven days and over $2000 on a train trip when I could instead fly there in about 13 hours non-stop for under $300 is simply not feasible.

By the way, if you took an automobile with an fuel efficiency rating of 25 mpg that approximately 6,000 mile trip would create about 2 tons of carbon or about 0.67 lbs CO2 per mile. A hybrid with a mpg of 46 would produce just over one ton of CO2, or around 0.38 lbs CO2 per mile.

Huh, maybe instead of the train, we should drive a hybrid. Unfortunately, it would take you seven days (70 mph, 12 hours a day) just to get to Miami. But for shorter distances, I’m thinking that is the highly efficient car may be the way to go. That and you can listen to the radio really loudly and not bother your neighbor.

trains, planes, travel, carbon dioxide, carbon emissions, miles traveled, Amtrak, Carbonfund, hybrid, MPG, carbon emissions, CO2

I know, I know, everybody is talking about eating local and seasonal so as to lower your carbon footprint — in that your food doesn’t travel thousands of miles by carbon dioxide spewing trucks because it comes from within 100 miles or so, among many, many other reasons.

But are you drinking local?

Check this out. National Geographic has a one-pager on the carbon emissions from the transport of wine around the world. Another blogger (who says we are all a bunch of hacks?) Dr. Vino Tyler Coleman and Pablo Paster, a sustainability engineer, put together some numbers and Nat Geo put together a rather telling graphic.

The gist of it is that if you are really serious about how many natural resources it takes to put food and drink in your belly, you should not be choosing you wine based on what’s trendy or highly-rated, but instead choose wine (and spirits) from a more local source or if you do have a thing for foreign wine, choose wine from the country that can ship it to you via ocean trade routes.

For instance, according to the map, Napa Valley wines are big emitters due to the lengthy road journeys from California to the East Coast markets. But those same California Cabernets are shipped via boat to Asia and Australia, and thus the cargo ship shipping lowers those per bottle emissions. So, you must figure out where your wine is from, and then figure out a better way to get a buzz.

I happen to live in Oregon, so I am one of those lucky imbibers that lives close to three pretty top-notch wine regions. But I happen to love French and Spanish wine. I could either give up my love affairs with Gigondas and Piorat, or I could move to the East Coast of the US (given that I would remain in the US). This graphic and the idea behind it gives me extra motivation to drink more Pinot Noir. But what about that poor oenophile in Iowa City?

Now, I grew up in Michigan, so I can relate to land-locked winos. And for those of you that don’t live near a coastal port or within a few hundred miles of such ports, there is local wine everywhere. I learned to love Gewurztraminers and Reislings living in Michigan, as those are the grapes that grow well there. I have tried sparkling wines from New York’s Finger Lakes region that were equally tasty. The Chardonelle I tried in Misssouri — not so good, but they did have other varietals. I have even had some Petite Syrah from Mexico.

Use this topic as a challenge to not only find local wine, but local beer and spirits. You may just like what you taste. If not, have a few more drinks, and you will.

wine, transportation, carbon footprint, wine industry, carbon emissions, cargo ships, trucks, New York State wine, Michigan wine, Missouri wine, Oregon wine, French wine, Spanish wine, eat local, local foods, seasonal foods, beer, spirits

Despite my issues with coal, some climate modelers have discovered that even if no new coal plants were built from here on out, it would not make much difference in terms of carbon dioxide emissions.

Great, we really are screwed…

Carnegie Mellon’s Jay Apt and Adam Newcomer took a whole bunch of climate data and broke everything down into four scenarios. The first scenario was inertia, that is keep the coal burning to meet increased needs, but with the help of the traditional energy sources we have all come to love. We’ll call this one the control scenario.

The three experimental scenarios all ban new coal plants. Scenarios Two and Three presume that energy needs will continue to increase at historical levels, as seen below in the graph from the Energy Information Administration.

And this graph is only data for the United States…

Anyhoo, Scenario Two is modeled on the premise that wind energy will replace coal in terms of new energy needs with natural gas as a complement. Scenario Three works on the premise that new needs will be met with only natural gas. Scenario Four takes the path of no increase in energy needs (as in the US finally starts using energy efficiently like Jimmy Carter told us to).

The final scenario quenches increased energy needs with wind and natural gas as well, but it assumes that U.S. residents won’t require any more energy than they do today–if, say, people become much more efficient in their energy usage; the only increase in demand would come from a growing population. The team applied the model to three main regions in the United States: the Midwest, Texas, and parts of the East Coast. –Science

Needless to say if you read today’s title, the cut backs in new coal power will not make a significant enough dent in carbon emissions to perhaps maybe possibly mitigate the worst effects of anthropogenic global warming.

In the best cases of the scenarios, carbon emissions may be cut by almost half along the East Coast of the US. However, the low end of the possible range of emission declines in that same case is only 18%. So sure, emissions could be cut by 18 to 48% along the East Coast, but many climate scientists feel that reductions must be cut by 80% in order to stave off significant climate change.

You can click on the link here to read the full set of numbers from the models.

And the ineffectual reductions are not the bad part. If coal goes out of style, and natural gas takes over as America’s energy choice, prices for natural gas could increase from 175 to 500%. Awesome.

energy, coal, power, electricity, United States, power plants, efficiency, climate change, global warming, energy usage

At first, I was attracted to this article because it was about the inevitable famines the world will suffer, due to climate change and a 50 percent increase in the world’s population. But then reading through, I noted that the US State Department’s Chief Science Advisor, Dr. Nina Fedoroff, made a strong statement about genetically-modified crops.

Like Professor Beddington [Britain’s chief scientist] and Bob Watson, the chief scientist at the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Dr Fedoroff believes genetic engineering must be expanded if the world is going to be able to feed itself.

Genetic modification, she said, can have strong environmental benefits, such as significant reductions in pesticide use, while improving crop yields. Of crucial important will be the ability of scientists to identify genes which enable plants to survive in hot and dry zones so that they can be used to help the most productive crop strains survive and thrive as global warming intensifies.

She said it was important that both GM technologies and conventional crop development were encouraged now because the process of bringing new strains from the laboratory to the field took years. — TimesOnline

Ah, CM crops. Thay sound like such a great idea, don’t they? Just go in and tinker with a plant until it doesn’t need water to grow or frightens away certain insects. But we have a multitude of examples of science being used to catastrophic ends, and I am of the opinion that genetically-modifying crops is most probably a bad idea.

However, that said, we may not have a choice in the matter, and due to desperation, we may just have to play god and hope that things work out.

The “top US Scientist” as the title of the Times article suggests, is in France for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference this week. Dr. Fedoroff is there to talk about food shortages and the action needed to prevent them.

Fedoroff is “convinced that food shortages will be the biggest challenge facing the world as temperatures and population levels rise. Food security in the coming years, she said, is ‘a huge problem’ that has been met with little more than complacency. ‘We are asleep at the switch,’ she said.”

It’s funny that she’d advocate for GMO’s over population control. If there will be a shortage of food in 2030 that will affect 1 billion people, and the population at that time would be around 9 billion, why not instead try to promote family-planning and reduce the future population by one billion people? Problem solved.

And yes, I’m being glib.

US, State Department, Nina Fedoroff, famine, food shortage, climate change, population

Am I the only one who sees the Nano from India’s Tata Motors as both a blessing and a burden, and yet, as an American, I feel guilty about pointing out that this little car that could could increase the total number of cars on the road by say 750 million, the approximate population of India. Ok, that number is far-far-fetched, but my point is that even a small relatively gas-efficient car will create more emissions overall, especially when the vehicle is being priced to attract first-time car-owners. And yes, I am aware how selfish I am by saying that, as I do own a car.

It’s kind of that same feeling I got when I read this article in the New York Times today about stimulus money building a toll-road through a Texan prairie outside of Houston. Even the best intentions has undesirable consequences, and unfortunately these consequences are getting more and more dire as we pump more and more carbon into the atmosphere.

I realize that we Americans have had our cheap cars for about a century now, and we did way more than our fair share of contributing to the current carbon crisis, so how is it fair to criticize affordable individual transportation options in other countries? It is not fair, but yet, fair has little to do with this, unfortunately. We are all going to suffer the affects of climate change, and the poorest among us will be hurt the most. How is that fair? The poor pay for the environmental degradation needed to provide us all with luxury goods that we perceive as necessities. Ah, but I am being rather pessimistic today.

Luckily, the cheap car that India’s growing middle class is clamoring for (and thanks to the low price of about $2000 USD, even the lower classes may be able to afford the Nano) has a small engine that is fairly fuel-efficient at 20-26 km/liter, or approximately 47 to 61 miles per gallon, which beats the US average by a lot.

So, yes, I applaud that India is becoming wealthy and more people are moving out of poverty and into relative affluence through hard work and innovation. And I appreciate that the People’s Car gets good gas mileage. I just hope that the flip side of that wealth will also look at responsible transportation options. It is nice having a car around for some things, but it is better to use public transit or a bike for everyday commutes. It just worries me that the US has exported it’s rather toxic culture to the rest of the world for so long that it might be too late to change the lens.

Tata Motors, Tata, India, Nano, cheap car, People’s car, transportation, cars, vehicles, carbon emissions, US

“Smart Grid” is quickly becoming a buzzword among politicians, environmentalists, and utility companies. But what exactly is a Smart Grid and how it is going to save the planet?

The “smart grid” is not a single thing, but rather a whole host of technologies that can be used to create or upgrade an electric grid using digital devices to keep track of usage and monitor peak usage as well as controlling the usage within a home or building to ensure that high-energy devices are switching on during off-peak times when possible. A smart grid may include monitors within buildings that allow users to better manage their energy usage. Smart grids will also become necessary to allow individual sources of energy, like home solar panels or geothermal systems, to upload to and feed the grid. And electric cars that you plug in at home? Yeah, those will need smart grid technology to work.

It’s not like a Smart Grid will solve all of our problems, but it may help us use energy more efficiently, and that is something that is becoming extremely important as the world’s thirst for cheap power grows. Even a small percentage of efficiency in a major city’s electrical grid means big savings in terms of carbon emissions. The US’s electricity grid was first developed and built in the early part of the 20th century, so yeah, that’s not outdated or anything.

Leave it to the Dutch to take the lead in converting the first major city to full smart grid technology. The city of Amsterdam may provide us with a useful case study on how a large city can install and benefit from a smart grid. Amsterdam is currently restructuring its energy infrastructure to be “smart” and hopes to have it all done in the next few years.

All told, the municipality, energy outfits, and private companies are expected to invest more than $1 billion over the next three years. That figure includes a $383 million investment by local electricity network operator Alliander in so-called “smart grid” technology that uses network sensors and improved domestic energy monitoring to trim electricity use. Also part of the plan: up to $255 million to be spent by local housing cooperatives on boosting household energy efficiency, and $383 million from companies including Phillips (PHG) and Dutch utility Nuon to be invested in other energy-efficient technology.

“In the next year and a half, we expect to be the leading smart city in Europe,” says Ger Baron, senior project manager at the Amsterdam Innovation Motor, a public-private joint venture that is overseeing the project. “We’re in the right place at the right time.”

The focus on cutting cities’ emissions could have a major impact on the battle against global warming. As of 2006, more people now live in urban areas than in the countryside, and the sprawl surrounding megacities such as Mumbai and Saõ Paolo is only likely to increase. Consultancy Accenture (ACN) reckons cities produce almost two-thirds of total global carbon dioxide emissions through a combination of car fumes, household energy use, and industrial manufacturing. In the coming years, policy shifts from the U.S. and elsewhere will put even more pressure on controlling carbon output.

“Until now, there’s been an underemphasis on what cities can do to cut emissions,” says Mark Spelman, Accenture’s global head of strategy. –Business Week

Global technology companies like IBM and Cisco are also getting in on Amsterdam’s plans to change the way the city uses energy. And Dutch banks are going to provide small loans to homeowners to purchase and install green improvements around the house, with the intention that the costs saved from energy efficiency will pay for the cost of the loans.

The Business Week article also mentions that Xcel Energy is working in the city of Boulder, Colorado to connect 60,000 homes to a smart grid.

Considering that in most cases, smart grids are being pushed by energy companies and that is a positive move. Whether it is just to make more money or not, moving forward in innovation is what this world needs, rather than trying to squeeze more money from the planet’s dwindling resources.

Smart Grid, electricity, energy, Amsterdam, technology, efficiency, homes, usage, solar panel, geothermal, electric car, IBM, Cisco, Xcel Energy, Boulder, Colorado

File this one under dire news…

Less than two weeks after the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger (who despite all my fears has turned out being one of the better governors out there — I may just yet change my mind about actors going into politics) declared a state of emergency in the state of California due to drought, a new report details that California will be hit hard by rising sea-levels in the next century.

Maybe California should start building more desalination plants like the proposed Poseidon desalination plant below.

First, it is true that California is suffering under drought conditions. The US Drought Monitor shows an improvement this past week, but that improvement is from “exceptional drought” to “severe drought.” Click here to go to a nifty 12-week animated drought map of the US. But for the month of January and February, the northern “ice cap” of the High Sierra’s presented a dangerous situation for a state that must support not only a huge population, but also a major agricultural region in the Central Valley.

California’s state water board is busy crunching the data on conservation efforts underway, including the Governor’s request for voluntary residential reduction in usage and if need be, the state may have to impose water rations.

Secondly, the Pacific Institute has released a report on possible impacts of sea-level rise on the California coastline, a popular spot for not only residential areas but also waste dumps. If the dire predictions of the IPCC come true, California could expect losses in the billions when it comes to property and infrastructure lost.

And the bad news is that most of the available climate models used by the Pacific Institute do not take the possible melting of Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets into account, so the estimates of a 1.5 meter rise in sea levels may be a little on the low side.

Geez, poor California…If an earthquake doesn’t destroy the coastline, global warming will.

governator, California, Schwarzenegger, drought, state of emergency, sea levels, global warming, agriculture, infrastructure, climate change, Greenland, Antarctica, water, rationing, Pacific Institute, High Sierras, earthquake

A “green” or “living” roof is nothing new, really; Europe has been a big fan for some time now. However, the US is just starting to catch on to the idea, and again it floors me that something that is this good of an idea didn’t catch on years ago. Kinda like solar panels on the White House…

The idea is simple. Instead of traditional roofing materials, layers of materials including “soil” (it’s really more of an aggregate like in hydroponic growing methods) are installed complete with plantlife. Instead of a hard surface, rainwater falls onto the soils and the plants. The natural roof filters water naturally and slowly, rather than just rush the water off through the storm drains into the sewer system. Some green roofs go all out and actually use the space to grow crops or create a natural habitat for wildlife.

The Fairmount Waterfront Hotel in Vancouver, BC, Canada has a roof-top garden that produces about $30,000 worth of produce and herbs yearly.

The “green roof” trend is growing outside of Europe. Japan requires that 20% of all new roofs on larger buildings be “planted.” The self-proclaimed “greenest city in America”, Chicago, Illinois is encouraging green roofs on new buildings and on retrofitted roofs with tax credits.

There are some downsides in green roofs, mostly by way of costs and the feasibility of retrofitting older buildings that were not designed to carry the extra weight of the plant-roofs. But costs can be mitigated by way of the savings that green roofs bring in terms of cooling costs. Hard-surface roofs can get mighty hot in the summer, and that heat is transferred inside to an extent. A green roof will stay around the ambient temperature, even in the middle of August.

Those cooling tendencies of green roofs also help out the area around the building, and by extension, if all roofs were green or partially green at least, the surrounding community will benefit. That is why Tokyo is pushing green roofs so hard. Tokyo’s average temperature has outpaced global warming increases by 5.

green roofs, natural roofs, eco-roofs, plant roofs, planted roofs, roof construction, sustainable roofs, green building, sustainable building, US, Tokyo, Europe, Chicago, Illinois, heating, cooling, costs, global warming, temperature

I have spent some time in the past on the issue of clean coal, both on this site and on Urban Ecoist’s sistah-site, Daily Science Dose, here and here. So it won’t come as any secret to anyone that I am skeptical of the fossil fuel industry and I like sharing my skepticism with all my smart and well-groomed readers.

I received my first update from a group called the ACCCE. At first, I had to wonder what group this was, but I sign up for newsletters from many, many organizations, so it was perfectly reasonable for me not to figure out immediately that ACCCE stands for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

The email itself doesn’t explain the acronym, but there are several handy links in the body of the message. One of which takes you to the Behind the Plug blog. Here, I’ll give you a link to it as well, it’s that awesome!

An example of pure comedy genius:

Today’s post is all about the “regrettable choice” that my home state of Michigan has made by forcing Big Coal to slow down plans to build more coal-fired power plants in the Great Lakes State.

Recently, Michigan’s Governor has taken a stand to become a “green energy” state. The auto plants have let the state down, and she is looking to the future to save her sorry state. Have you not noticed the ads on TV every now and then (I usually see them during PGA Tour events) with Jeff Daniels talking about how great it is to do business in Michigan? Michigan is hurting, economically, as it has depended on old, dirty technology for far too long.

The Clean Coal blog claims that due to the automaker’s forced re-tooling, the state will be needing a “robust supply of baseload energy.” And renewable sources “will not be sufficient to meet that growing need.” No evidence to support that claim there, but why would Big Coal lie? Here’s the best part…

Gov. Granholm also set a goal to reduce the carbon footprint associated with power generation in her state. That goal can be best met through deploying new technologies that capture and store CO2, not through mandates that would lessen Michigan’s reliance on affordable, domestic energy resources like coal – which currently provides more than 60 percent of Michigan’s power.

There are currently eight new coal plants being proposed in Michigan. Each of these projects provides an opportunity to create jobs for Michigan workers and ensure that electricity production keeps pace with the state’s projected energy needs. These plants can be retrofitted with advanced technologies to capture and store CO2. In fact, given the time necessary to permit and construct a new power plant today, it’s possible that these technologies would become available for deployment at or very near the time these new plants are put into operation.

I added the emphasis on that last sentence.

So the argument is that coal will be just fine when the new technology is installed to capture the carbon and sequester it elsewhere. BUT…that technology is not available. The writer even admits that, but he lamely offers a possibility that those new technologies may prove successful enough by the time that these new coal plants are built that the plants can be retrofitted to reduce their emissions.

This post is just an example of the greenwashing going on. I am tempted to leave a comment, just for giggles, as the comment will only appear after being approved by the author.

And let’s look at the author. He’s Joe Lucas. He’s the ACCCE’s VP of Communications. And he also helped found a group called the Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, which is one of two groups that merged to form the ACCCE. The ABEC was a lobbying group. They got their funding from guess who, the mining industry. In just the last year that ABEC operated, the group received over 3 million dollars in funding.

Huh, I guess that it is “possible” that Mr. Lucas is maybe just a little biased…

coal, clean coal, ACCCE, Americans Coalition for Clean Coal Technology, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, mining, Big Coal, carbon, Michigan, Governor Granholm, renewable, energy, automakers, technology, greenwashing, lobbyists

For the time being, let’s hope so.

First, a little backstory…The Arctic is melting. Whether you want to blame man for that or not, it is happening. Summer of 2007 saw the lowest “minimum”* of sea ice since, well, the last Ice Age. 2008’s figures are not any better, though not as minimum as ‘07.

*sea ice minimum refers to the point in the summer season in which the ice cap melts to it’s lowest level. Conversely, the “maximum” is the point during the winter in which there is the most ice. Simple enough.

So, with Arctic ice sheets abating, that means that the Arctic Ocean is becoming more and more navigable to ships and fishing boats. Also, it seems that some species of fish that prefer colder water may be moving into Arctic waters. If the fish go to the Arctic Sea, so will the fishing boats.

Or so it would seem. But somehow the North Pacific Fishery Management Council are becoming a more forward-thinking government agency, and fishing boats may not be allowed in Arctic waters off of Alaska. The NPFMC is meeting in early February to make the final determination on whether or not to create legal fisheries in the Arctic Ocean.

To get a little more detailed, the NPFMC may one day allow fishing in the Arctic, but not until proper studies of the region and its ecosystem can be conducted. The fish populations should be studied first and maybe fished second if the populations can withstand harvest.

You can do your part (besides making sure the fish you consume is sustainably harvested) in this decision making process by writing the NPFMC and letting them know that you support the decision to make an environmental survey of the Arctic fish stocks (and future immigrant populations fleeing warming waters in more southern seas) before allowing commercial fishing concerns to pillage and plunder in order to make more fish sticks.

Click on this sentence to go to the PEW Environmental Group’s website to send an email (save paper) to the Chairman of the NPFMC asking him to close off Arctic waters to commercial fishing.

Arctic, Arctic Ocean, fisheries, fishing, commercial fishing, Alaska, ice, global warming, climate change, fish, populations, stocks, North Pacific Fishery Management Council, sustainably harvested

The controversy over biodiesel and biofuels is coming to a head, and in Germany, the biodiesel industry is feeling the effects of a government that fears increasing food prices are a result of increased ratios of biofuel in the nation’s petrol supply.  To counter the ill effects of more crops going into automobiles rather than humans, Germany has passed laws to increase the taxes on biofuels in addition to setting a lower standard for mixing biofuels into traditional fossil-based fuels.  Taxes to supposedly even out the playing field and make biofuels more prohibitively expensive, and lower standards in the mix ratio to ensure that farmers will still grow food crops. The result could be that smaller biofuel firms will have to close their doors.

The problem is that in Germany there are small firms that make biodiesel, and up until recently, those businesses were doing quite well.  Germans wanted to reduce their carbon footprint and carbon emissions, green industry was ready to jump in to provide a product and a service, and the German government thought that biofuels were going to be the next big thing that could save the planet.

But then reality sunk in. More and more crops were going to biofuel processors rather than food processors and markets. Food prices started going up, going up so much and so quickly that parts of the world saw rioting in the streets due to the increased price of rice and wheat. It’s simple economics. Even is demand were to remain steady, if the supply is reduced, prices will go up to reflect the now-increased demand. The equation is always balanced, so if supply goes down, demand goes up. Higher demand means that people will pay more for it, whether it is a luxury item or a staple.

And of course, there is the whole matter of whether or not certain crops used for biofuels actually create more carbon than the carbon emissions they may or may not be preventing. And then you have the whole issue over deforestation in certain parts of the world as more and more people are looking to plant things that can be sold to biofuel processors, like palm and soybeans.

Germany, biofuel, biodiesel, taxes, industry, food, crops, sustainable, food shortages, riots, economics, agriculture, carbon, emissions

This is interesting to me, not because Robert Redford is involved or that gas companies are funding the protesters, but because this exemplifies the contentious relationship between society and wilderness, the urban and the ecoist.

I have tried to bring to your attention to Bush’s attempt to sell off parts of the Utah wildlands to oil and gas companies — well, not sell, but lease at bargain prices, so that the oil and gas companies can make billions off of publicly owned minerals.

A group called the Congress of Racial Equality has set up camp in Utah just in time for the Sundance Film Festival in order to call out Robert Redford and his protests of the Bush Landgrab Auction. CoRE’s stance is that by protesting the sale of mineral rights for some of Utah, Robert Redford hates poor urban people.

CoRE believes that by not allowing the natural gas companies drill in Utah, prices will increase for Grandma on Social Security back in New York City. That may seem like a simplified version of the protest, but I have only broke it down into its real merits. Granted, fuel prices will rise this winter season, but not because Robert Redford is helping an environmental group urge Obama to overturn the late lame duck actions that did end up getting passed.

I am all for equality and environmental justice, but I gotta say that CoRE is off its rocker. To even surmise that Robert Redford or any opposition to drilling or mining is what is driving up fuel costs is so unbelievably wrong that it is almost laughable. CoRE would be better serving its members and those it claims to defend by protesting the oil and gas companies for making so much money off the backs of the poor. CoRE should be protesting outgoing (hallelujah and praise the lord) President[sic] Bush for allowing Big Oil, Big Gas and Big Coal from running rampant during his two ungodly long terms and make all those billions on substances that already lie beneath public lands. Not only that but CoRE should be protesting the whole system of a government that will pump so many dollars of subsidies into the fossil fuel industries so as to skew the cost of those fuels so low that no other fuel source can compete cost-wise — until those fuels start running out after causing catastrophic damage to the ecosystem.

Yeah, maybe you should look at your actions, CoRE. Is it really Redford that is using his fame to preserve Utah so he can “look at the scenery” or is it CoRE that is using Redford’s fame to push the agenda of ExxonMobil, a major funding source for CoRE’s operations?

protests, Utah, lease, mineral rights, wilderness, Robert Redford, Sundance, natural gas, festival, Congress of Racial Equality, Exxon, ExxonMobil, oil, gas, coal, mining, drilling, fossil fuels, heating costs, environmental justice

This is one of those news stories you hear, and you just shake your head in disgust.

Maybe if the Coal Industry had spent all those clean coal advertising dollars on building better containment areas for the enormous amounts of toxic waste that clean coal is producing, these spills would not keep happening.

It was reported this morning that yet another TVA coal-fired plant has suffered a spill of its coal by-product. And this spill happened in a holding pond that was seriously just inspected and as of December 31st, was deemed safe.

The Tennessee Valley Authority that runs the Widow’s Creek Fossil Plant near Stevenson, Alabama has claimed that the spill is smaller than the Kingston spill in Tennessee last month. And this spill’s waste is mostly gypsum, which is a naturally occurring benign substance used in the manufacture of dry wall and cement. It can also be used to promote coagulation in tofu, adding calcium. Just in case you didn’t know that, tofu-nuts.

However, by early afternoon, the “spill” was renamed a “leak.” The TVA now says that it was a pipe that was leaking and they did not know how long it had been leaking. Hmm, shouldn’t that have been discovered during the recent inspection?

The TVA also claims that the gypsum leak did not significantly leak out into Widow’s Creek (appropriately named for its close proximity to a coal plant, if you ask me), but instead remains in the holding pond. Normally, the gypsum is held in that pond and then dried out and sold to companies that make cement.

On the same day that the leak at Widow’s Creek was discovered, another story came out that the Kingston Fossil Plant had two previous leaks that were not adequately repaired before the major coal ash spill a few days before Christmas.

That TVA sure is doing good work…More coal-fired plants, please. [super sarcasm]

coal, ash, spill, leak, gypsum, Alabama, TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority, Widows Creek, Kingston, Tennessee

Cows fart.  Cows fart a lot. Cows fart methane, and methane is twenty times more effective at trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. So are cows to blame for global warming?

Way back in high school debate class, a friend and I were debating global warming (yes, way back then in 1993 — this argument is nothing new, people). She was flying through the negative side of the argument and blithely read a piece of evidence that read something along the lines of cows are to blame for global warming and humans have nothing to do with it. It was kind of besides the point in the argument, and anyone who participated in high school-level debate knows that most of what you do is read quotes from articles and scientific journals as fast as you can in hopes that your opponent doesn’t have time to refute it. I didn’t even catch this little tidbit of silliness, until Mrs. Gillespie (shout out!) pointed out the cow fart argument. Luckily, Lori brought it up in a rebuttal, so I didn’t have to refute it — and yes, I won, but as always I am digressing. Kind of.

Cows and their flatulence have been the focus of some global warming nay-sayers for years, but those farts are also a valid contributor to rising methane levels. But hardly can anyone point the finger at cows without also pointing four fingers back at ourselves?

Do cows live in the wild? Yes, they do. The San Diego Zoo website can tell you all about it if you click on this link. But how many cows live on this planet simply because we like to eat them and drink their milk?

There is approximately one cow per 4 people on this planet, or 1.5 billion cows. Ironically, India has the most cows, despite the fact that they don’t eat them. In the US, we have about 100 million head of cattle, or one cow per 3 people, slightly higher than the world’s average. That’s a whole lotta fartin’ goin’ on.

You may run across the whole issue of cow farts in the news here and there, as the US Environmental Protection Agency had proposed putting a tax on cows in an attempt to curb greenhouse gases and curb global warming. Of course, the cattle industry went berserk, and the EPA said, just kidding, we were only saying that to see what the cattle industry would say.

Huh? Actually, double huh, because I am not sure how effective a tax on cattle would be in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Yeah, taxes on cows would increase beef prices to consumers and then maybe consumers would give up beef, but if you think of the scope of how much beef is consumed in the US alone, by way of fast food, golly, would Americans really be able to give up red meat?

Methinks that the fast food industry would find some way to “water down” beef with more fillers to keep people hooked.

But for those of us that can see the forest for the trees, it is hard to deny that if we did in fact reduce the amount of beef consumed, maybe that could have a real impact on the amount of methane pumped into the atmosphere. Granted, it may not make a tremendous difference once that permafrost melts and all that methane trapped under ice and frozen soil comes bubbling up, but we urban ecoists try to make individual efforts in hopes of creating a larger change.

And I have written in the past about how much water it takes to raise cattle. Giving up beef could help out this planet in more ways than just in terms of methane. Cows drink a lot of water and eat a lot of grain, which also needs water. Processing beef also required water. And water is something we ain’t got to spare anymore.

cows, fart, flatulence, methane, tax, global warming, water, beef, fast food, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, India, US, cattle industry,

Here is an interesting scheme to get cars out of a congested city. London Mayor Boris Johnson is urging Londoners to sell their cars in order to reduce the number of cars on London streets by more than 100,000.

It’s called the Car Crunch London initiative. You see, London is going to be hosting the Olympics in the summer of 2012, and like most cities hosting said games, London is forced to rethink its transportation infrastructure in terms of traffic congestion. No one visiting a world-class Olympic city wants to be stuck in traffic — nor does anyone else for that matter, but it seems that the spotlight of hosting an Olympic Games really makes city planners and administrators wake up and smell the exhaust fumes.

If you live in London and sell your car, you can get a two-year free membership in car clubs called Streetcar that provides you with a vehicle when you need it. You need not own a car, pay for insurance and upkeep, gas or petrol as they call it on that side of the pond. This kind of car-sharing program is best for people who don’t need a car constantly, obviously, but car clubs can also be useful for anyone who wants to cut down on their driving. Maybe use public transit for that commute to work and only drive a car for shopping trips in which large parcels need to be carried or travels to areas where public transit doesn’t go, like a forest or parkland.

From an article announcing the initiative in The Standard:

Boris Johnson said: “Car clubs are a fantastic way for Londoners to reduce their motoring costs and help cut carbon emissions in the capital.

“Campaigns like this, which spread the word about the benefits of car clubs, are to be welcomed. We are supporting the growth of these services by helping 21 London boroughs to introduce 500 car club vehicles into London this year.” Transport for London said every car club vehicle takes 20 privately owned vehicles off the road.

Brett Akker, Streetcar’s cofounder, said: “We’re creating a win-win opportunity for Londoners. By taking up the Car Crunch challenge, they get to rid themselves of the costs and hassles of owning a car in the city, while dramatically cutting their carbon footprint.

This may be a good idea, to offer a financial incentive to get people to give up their cars. However, any reader living in America may be scoffing at the idea of giving up their cars and joining a car club, even if it were free (for a while). Sadly, in the US, aside from larger metropolitan areas, going without a car is next to impossible. Heck, I am staying at my Aunt’s outside of Detroit, Michigan and you cannot even walk anywhere because there are few sidewalks and walking alongside most of the roads around here may get you killed by automobiles going fifty miles an hour with little to no regard for pedestrians. And if you bring up the idea of giving up the SUVs and minivans to most Americans, you will get a funny look.

But why not give up your car, or at least one of the cars in the typical American household? Do you really need it? Maybe you could carpool with others in your neighborhood to a transit center or with others at your workplace that live in the same suburb. It’s just an idea, unless of course you enjoy paying for new tires, new brakes, tune ups, transmission and engine repairs, and insurance.

Maybe I am just talking crazy…but way to go, London. At least you are taking some form of action to reduce the number of cars on your narrow roads…

London, car crunch initiative, transportation, public transit, car clubs, carpooling, car sharing, cars, automobiles, traffic, congestion, infrastructure, Olympics, 2012, city planning, city driving, gas, insurance, American drivers