Meet Ecofont. And it looks its best in 10 point. Anything bigger and you can start to see the holes. See what I mean?

The trick is that each letter, number or symbol has all these little holes in it. Holes mean no ink in that spot, obviously, and thus the savings in costly printer ink and more ink cartridges going into landfills by those of us that don’t bother to recycle them (I’m guilty of this sometimes).

Now, it’s not like you are going to save the world with a font here, but if you can conserve ink, why not, right? I have recently gone back to get my masters (the reason for sporadic new posts) and suddenly, I find that I am printing out a lot more than I used to. So this ecofont couldn’t have come at a better time. I cannot give you any quantifiable savings on my end as a newbie user, and I really doubt that I will be able to perceive a discernible difference considering my control (previous amount printed) was just changed. But I have faith that I will save ink, dammit!

Anyhoo, the font is available to you free via this site, ecofont.eu (yes, it’s a European product, because they care more about the world than we do here in ‘merica).

It’s a zip file and it is pretty easy to install. You can read some help files on the site if you find that you are having problems getting the file into your fonts drive, or whatever I did to get this to work. The only problem that I had was trying to find it listed under Ecofont. It’s Spranq eco sans in Word.

Ecofont download available here

National Geographic, ecofont, printing, ink

The swig in question takes place later in the meeting during the Q & A portion, but you can clearly see the bottle at about 5:22 into the clip.

So, there I was, jiving on the President’s thoughts about health care reform (which should have happened in the 1990’s, if not sooner — thanks, GOP!), and I was a little taken aback when I saw Mr. Obama take a swig from a clear plastic water bottle without a label. And that struck me as funny, too. His press appearances are like TV shows in that they will not show a brand name — unless the company making the brand pays for it.

...from twilightearth.com

And I wasn’t taken aback like I was shocked or offended because I am so granola and self-righteous about it…but more taken aback because I am surprised that no one has gotten to him yet about bottled water. I understand that the man travels a lot, and maybe it is easier on his system if he drinks only one kind of water, but then again, water is water and bottled water comes from all kinds of sources, so I kinda doubt that he insists on drinking only one “brand” of water. And hi, he’s a smoker, so it’s not like it’s a taste thing.

I guess it’s more of a situation where a subtle difference may make a larger impact due to the person making the difference. If Barack Obama showed up in Green Bay with his own water bottle (BPA Free, of course), that would make a subtle statement. A statement not only to the people attending that Town Hall meetin’, but also to anyone watching the coverage. He doesn’t have to pose with a fancy-schmancy stainless steel reusable water bottle or take a long dramatic drink from it, either, though that would be funny if done in the right way.

But of course, much like Michelle Obama’s White House garden, I’m sure that some bottled water industry group would start throwing a fit about how tap water is endangering the safety of nation’s water supply…

Need a water bottle yourself? Check out Gardenaut’s extensive review, and I like that site, so I’m linking to it.

Barack Obama, water, bottled water, tap water, reusable water bottle, BPA free, Michelle Obama, garden, Green Bay, Wisconsin, town hall, tv coverage, president

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

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

Oil Shale: A Destructive Way to Put Off the Inevitable

It is not like oil shale has not been around forever, literally. Cavemen figured out how to burn oil shale rocks. It wasn’t until the dawn of the Industrial Revolution that mankind rediscovered this resource and started mining it in great quantities. That was all well and good, but oil shale was more expensive to process than petroleum, which also has more potential energy, and petrol became our fuel of choice.

Oil shale does not contain oil, per se. It contains kerogen, which contains hydrocarbons. But it’s a bit of a process to get those hydrocarbons, which means it costs more to get those hydrocarbons. And we all know what it means when a form of energy costs more than good ol’ gas or coal — it is not going to fly with the American public.

But wait, oil prices have been rising, which makes oil shale extraction more attractive to the American public in terms of cost. However, there are costs involved in oil shale that many of us might not see as part of the bottom line.

Oil shale has to be mined, and mining is almost always a very destructive process in terms of the environment in which the minable resource is found. Look at mountaintop removal-style mining in Appalachian coal deposits, and you will see what I mean.

In an odd move by the Obama Admin, in the person and department of Ken Salazar and the Interior, our federal government is going to offer our public lands to oil shale development projects. Incidentally, there are already six 160 acre parcels of public lands that have already bee “leased” out to companies for “research, development, and demonstration” purposes.

Oil shale is a great way to finish destroying the West. This is what the Powder River Basin looks like after coal.

It’s not so much that oil shale wouldn’t provide cost-effective energy, but really? Are we still looking for ways to fill up our conventional combustion engines, or are we looking past fossil fuels to a cleaner and more responsible future? I say, screw the development leases, save what’s left of the Western United States, and spend that money and time on algae, or switchgrass, or jatropha, or something that doesn’t rely on the same tired technology that is not only destroying our planet, but if you need a more selfish and individualized reason, but air pollution affects your health.

It’s like the ship is sinking, but we keep thinking that if we go to the lower decks, we’ll be safe. Dig deeper? Please.

You have less than a month to bitch to Salazar about this futile exercise in energy development. Click here if you want to go the National Wildlife Federation website and have them send a letter to the DOI for you, or you can mail your own letter to the following:

Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240

or save a tree and email the DOI at feedback@ios.doi.gov

oil shale, United States, energy, oil, fossil fuels, environment, mining, resources, wilderness, Department of the Interior, Ken Salazar, Obama

Cash for Clunkers, if it passes Congress, will give up to one million American automobile buyers a voucher to use towards the purchase of a new, more fuel efficient vehicle. The vouchers come in two amounts — $3500 or $4500. So let’s multiply the average of those two amounts ($3000) by the number of vouchers, 1 million. The total “cost” for this program will be $4,000,000,000. That billion with a B. And that is not even factoring in administrative costs and what not.

1990 Dodge Monaco...classy.

The real problem lies in who is getting these magical vouchers. It’s not passenger car people. The vouchers will only go to people who can trade in a passenger vehicle that gets less than 18 MPG, which would be a 1990 Dodge Monaco or a 1985 Cadillac El Dorado convertible. Seriously, there are so few relatively modern “passenger vehicles” — that is not a light-duty truck, SUV, or large light-duty truck — that get less than 18 MPG that I’m guessing that very few Cash for Clunkers vouchers will be going to passenger car buyers.

So who will be getting these vouchers? Considering the vast majority of non-hybrid trucks and SUVs are lucky if they get a combined MPG of 18, then I am going to go out on a limb and say that only those who have a gas-guzzling truck or SUV will be able to qualify for the cash for clunker voucher. And the real winners are…American SUV makers.

In order to get the voucher for trading in a light-duty truck, you must be turning in a truck that gets under the 18 MPG threshold (check) and you need only to find a new truck or SUV that gets 2 mpg better than your trade-in. 2 mpg? Really? So we are going to reward those who turn in an SUV that gets, let’s say 18 MPG, for a new SUV that gets 21 MPG.

And when it comes to the large light-duty truck category, the trade-in truck only has to get one MPG better than the lower 15 MPG threshold to qualify for the $3500 voucher. If you upgrade to a large light-duty that gets 2 MPG better than your last truck, then you get the full $4500 voucher for that new 17 MPG truck.

Ok, so who couldn’t use $3500 or $4500 to buy a new car. I’m sure many a car buyer would be super stoked to get a voucher to buy a car that gets better gas mileage, but nope, sorry, the voucher is not for you, unless you are still driving a 1993 Lincoln Continental. But if you are driving a 2006 GMC Yukon, well, then you get a voucher for a new SUV that only gets 18 MPG.

Yay! The world is safe at last.

Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? I’m all for people making better decisions when it comes to buying cars, but come on, who stands to benefit from these vouchers? The same people who got a tax credit for buying those gas-luvin’ SUV’s five years ago.

When this bill goes before Congress, contact your representative and your senators to bitch about this, unless of course, you are in the market for a new SUV.

cash for clunkers, MPG, fuel efficiency, mileage, Congress, democrats, energy, commerce, cars, SUVs, trucks

Well, the data is being analyzed by some researchers that want to see what kind of tangible reductions in particulate pollution came with that olympic effort to cut back on industrial and automobile emissions.

Atmospheric scientist Jan Cermak of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich and a a mysteriously unnamed colleague looked at the aerosols in the atmosphere above the city of Beijing from the years 2002 through 2008. They used satellite data, which could measure the aerosol levels, but not the true location in terms of high-atmosphere or lower ground levels. Wind patterns, weather reports, rainfall, humidity — these factors were all taken into account to determine what the aerosol levels would have been during the Olympics and what they actually were from July to September 2008.

And guess what? It really didn’t matter what Beijing did. The city achieved some reductions in aerosol levels, but really nothing to get excited about. And why, you ask? Because so much air-bourne pollution came in to Beijing’s skies from other regional sources.

It turns out that the Chinese only achieved a modest reduction in aerosols. The researchers report in a paper in press in Geophysical Research Letters that pollution-control efforts reduced the overall amount of aerosols in the atmosphere by about 10% to 15%. That small change highlights the importance of factors such as wind direction in determining local pollution, says Cermak. In spite of the reduction in local emissions, winds from the south and southeast sullied Beijing’s air by bringing in pollution from distant industrial areas, he says. — Science Magazine News

You see, that’s the funny thing about air-bourne pollution. It doesn’t stay still like land-based pollution. Oh, wait, land-based pollution doesn’t stay put, either. It leaches into the water supply. Huh, maybe we should just try harder not to pollute in the first place.

Naw, that will never work.

Still, the numbers show that Beijing did achieve a 10 to 15 percent reduction in aerosols above the city. Am I the only one who thinks that is a good start? Too bad the Chinese only did it for three months. Who knows what reductions could be achieved with a long-term cut in emissions?

air pollution, Olympics, China, Beijing, emissions, aerosols, atmosphere

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

Climate Counts recently released its findings as it pertains to responsible climate-centered action on the part of the toy making and children’s equipment industry, and let’s just say if it really were a Lego World, it wouldn’t be headed for a healthy future.

The big winner (and in that I mean the best of the very sad bunch) is Hasbro with a whopping 40. Woo-hoo. That puts them one point better than Kraft, a company that exploits the stupidity of the American Public with every single-serving snack pak of Corn Nuts. That 40 places Hasbro well above Sara Lee (13) and ConAgra (21). By contrast, the highest-scoring company rated by Climate Counts (I’ll detail the criteria below) is…ta dah…Nike.

Nike? Really? Isn’t Nike exploiting cheap labor in Southeast Asia to make $100+ basketball shoes? I thought I wasn’t supposed to support Nike.

That is exactly the issue I have with Climate Counts. Sure, it rates a company on 4 categories encompassing 22 criteria, and that marks the end of their purpose. But in the case of highly-rated Nike and Coca Cola, there are other issues to look at before deciding to buy a company’s products (as Climate Counts suggests). But that is yet another topic for another day, urban ecoists.

Oh, yeah, the four categories…

* MEASURED their climate “footprint”
* REDUCED their impact on global warming
* SUPPORTED (or suggest intent to block) progressive climate legislation
* Publicly DISCLOSED their climate actions clearly and comprehensively

So, you see, labor practices or safety is not taken into consideration when it comes to Climate Counts, but the point is to simply draw attention to how large corporations are dealing (or not) with climate change.

And returning to today’s topic, it seems that children’s products manufacturers are definitely not leading the Corporate Social Responsibility arena. In fact, the only industry that doesn’t beat Hasbro’s 40 is the airline industry (top airline Northwest rated a 39). And the hotel industry tied with Marriott’s 40. But there is no reason for the Toy/Kid Stuff industry to pat itself on its lead-painted back. No other industry had 62% (8 out of 13) of its major companies score a big fat Zero.

toy makers, childrens equipment, industry, Hasbro, Lego, Kraft, ConAgra, Sara Lee, Climate Counts, climate change, social responsibility, CSR, Nike, Coca Cola, children, environment

A little background on not only my garden, but also why I have decided to focus on the small garden plots in my yard. I begin with the latter. I do not in any way profess to be an expert gardener, in fact far from it. I am however an eager student and an effective researcher. I am also proving to be a cautionary example of what not to do.

For example, this is what I did to a Spanish lavender bush in my yard.

Yeah, don’t do this at home.

Gardening has become rather fashionable as of late, and in so much that maybe you are starting out in your own garden or starting to think about starting, maybe you can glean some value from reading about my own trials and tribulations in the ol’ victory garden.

Now the former…Perhaps overly ambitious, I began gardening with a bang. I was renting a farm house at the time, and hey, it’s a farm. That first garden became a beast, and ultimately led to a lot of mistakes on my part and on the part of bad luck. My next garden was an easy-to-manage raised bed of 24 square feet. If you take one piece of advice from all of this self-indulgence, start small.

Last year was my first season in Portland, Oregon. I live in a funky yard with a lot of different sun-shade patterns that I clearly did not know before planting. Not only that, but ravenous insects were also a major issue (especially cutworms). I definitely learned a lot from that first year. Also, I should mention that I rent my home (as do many urbanites) , so I am limited in what kind of garden improvements I can make.

That said, I did spend a good part of last season composting for this season. Success in that, and I bought a lot of compost last season and dug it in everywhere I could to try and break up all that effing clay that we have here in Oregon. I was a little underfunded last year, so I couldn’t go crazy with soil testing and the fancier soil amendments. I figured that compost was good as an all-around soil amendment, so I settled on composting as a cheap, effective action I could take for future use.

Also, last year I put in peas — lots of peas. I love peas, and they are seriously the easiest veggie to grow. Not only that, but pea plants fix nitrogen into the soil and if you dig the spent plants into the ground after your harvest, they break down into “green manure.” So, really, if you cannot do anything else this year, put in some peas.

My efforts last year included putting in some herbs. Fresh herbs are so super awesome to have around if you like to cook, or if you just want to impress people (if you are that gardener). I put in sage, chives, flat-leaf parsley, rosemary, and thyme.

Oh, yeah, and I put in twelve strawberry plants. A June-bearing variety (Mount Hood) and an ever-bearing. I read that you shouldn’t let your berry plants produce fruit the first year, which is so hard to do, but I trimmed off all flower heads to prevent fruiting. I am expecting some huge rewards for my herculean test of patience.

And somewhere I read that garlic should go into the ground in the fall, so I put in some garlic bulbs from my kitchen that were starting to grow little crowns. I try to only buy organic garlic, so I hope they were okay to stick in the ground. What’s the worse that can happen, right?

The baby on the right is Carlitos. You can read more about him and other children affected by pesticides here.

victory garden, garden, kitchen garden, urban garden, gardening, home gardening, peas, herbs, soil amendment, composting, strawberry, garlic