Category Archives: Climate Change

Eco-Friendly Kangaroo Gas Might Help Fight Global Warming

By Michael d'Estries  

It’s incredible the ingenious solutions we come up with to solve problems. Take for instance the issue of methane gas emitted from livestock. It’s a considerable sum that accounts for 14% of emissions from Australia and nearly 50% from New Zealand. Not to mention methane is 21 times more damaging than C02.

Scientists in Australia have discovered that kangaroo flatulence contains absolutely no methane.They’re attempting to isolate the special bacteria causing this and transfer it to the stomachs of cows and sheep. Not only will this help reduce the harmful emissions from these animals, but it may also increase the efficiency of their digestion. From the article,

“Researchers say the bacteria also makes the digestive process much more efficient and could potentially save millions of dollars in feed costs for farmers. ‘Not only would they not produce the methane, they would actually get something like 10 to 15 percent more energy out of the feed they are eating,’ said Klieve. Even farmers who laugh at the idea of environmentally friendly kangaroo farts say that’s nothing to joke about, particularly given the devastating drought Australia is suffering.”

Researchers believe it will take about three years to isolate the bacteria — and even then they’ll have to figure out a way to properly transfer it to cattle and sheep. In the meantime, some scientists are urging people to eat more kangaroo and less livestock. “It’s low in fat, it’s got high protein levels it’s very clean in the sense that basically it’s the ultimate free range animal.”

via Yahoo! News



Real Trees: The Difference Between Naughty or Nice Continued

The second part to our Eco-comparison of real and fake Christmas trees.

By Sharif Virani  

Our last article looked at the viability of real Christmas trees, in this one we will conversely take a brief look at some fake tree facts.

The first commercial sale and production of Christmas trees was by a toilet brush company during the 1930s, ironic? I think so.

Fake trees are generally attractive because they don’t dry out, die and you don’t have to cut them down. But like most artificial products these days, fake trees are generally made in China. and the fabrication of fake trees is a process that commonly incorporates the use of PVC and or polyethylene. For those of you that spent the majority of high school chemistry asleep, PVC is also known as the “Poison Plastic” and consumes reasonably high quantities of lead during its fabrication. Throughout its life cycle it also releases chemicals “such as mercury, dioxins, and phthalates, which” can “pose irreversible life-long health threats”.

If you are like me this probably conjures up images of a giant poison pine air freshener for your living room and I think it is safe to say that the winner of the more sustainable Christmas tradition rests with the one that just feels right, a real tree!

But wait!

We aren’t done yet, they are probably many of you out there thinking “What do we do with this giant thing after Christmas is done?”

Ignoring the most of obvious fact that a real Christmas tree is 100% biodegradable and can be turned into mulch and/or composted in your very own backyard, there are various companies around that are more than willing to take a real tree of your hands.

Biolyse Pharma Corp, is one of these such companies and use the needles of Christmas trees to manufacture flu prevention and treatment medication.

The following site by the CFTO, Christmas Tree Farms Of Ontario, has a ton of other ideas on how you can recycle your Christmas tree in your very own backyard.

If you are really opposed to having a tree cut down for the holiday season you can also by a live tree and either have it replanted in a nursery or replant it yourself, The Original Living Christmas Tree Company is just one of said companies that can help you do just that.

Happy Holidays Readers!

Out of Africa: A Grand Plan for Powering Europe Via the Sun

By Bill Hobbs  

Global-warming prophets warn of a world becoming more desert-like, but, ironically, a measure of salvation from that future just might come from one of the world’s greatest deserts.

Europe is considering plans to spend more than 5 billion English pounds - about $10.3 billion - to build a string of giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert shores of northern Africa and the Middle East, reports London’s Guardian newspaper. 

More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to European Union member nations, including Britain. Billions of watts of power could be generated this way, enough to provide Europe with a sixth of its electricity needs and to allow it to make significant cuts in its carbon emissions. At the same time, the stations would be used as desalination plants to provide desert countries with desperately needed supplies of fresh water.

The project is amazing in its proposed scope, and has the backing of Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, who last week presented details of project - named Desertec - to the European Parliament.

‘Countries with deserts, countries with high energy demand, and countries with technology competence must co-operate,’ he told MEPs. The project has been developed by the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Corporation and is supported by engineers and politicians in Europe as well as Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Jordan and other nations in the Middle East and Africa.

Here’s bin Talal’s white paper on the project.

In addition to solar power, Desertec would include not only solar power but wind - with wind-energy turbines located along the southern Mediterranean coast - as well as generation of hydro, biomass and geothermal power. It would supply power not only to Europe but also to the Middle East and North Africa.

This is the kind of big-idea thinking that the world is going to need more of. If such a project can work in the Mediterranean region, why is there no similarly ambitious plan at least being discussed to tap the enormous solar power and wind-power potential of such regions as the American desert southwest and parts of northern Mexico?

One reason may be cost. The Guardian story admits that the cost of power generated by the project would, at present realities, be about double what Europe now pays for power from coal. But the cost realities are changing. And cost isn’t the only factor to be considered.

The Desertec solar collectors would use a design called “concentrating solar power,”  in which banks of several hundred giant mirrors covering large areas of land, around a square kilometre, are set to focus the sun’s rays onto a central metal pillar filled with water, heating the water inside to to 800 degrees Celsius. The water vaporises into superhot steam which drives turbines that generate electricity.

Desertec envisions a thousand such solar power stations being built along the Mediterranean coast of northern Africa the Middle East, generating up to 100 billion watts of power, some of which would be exported to Europe via undersea cables. (For comparison, Britain’s total electricity generating capacity is 12 billion watts.)

In addition to power, the system would produce fresh water:

The superheated steam, after it has driven the plant’s turbines, would then be piped through tanks of sea water which would boil and evaporate. Steam from the sea water would piped away and condensed and stored as fresh water.

“Essentially you get electricity and fresh water,” said physicist Gerhard Knies, co-founder of the project. “The latter is going to be crucial for developing countries round the southern Mediterranean and in north Africa. Their populations are rising rapidly, but they have limited supplies of fresh water. Our solar power plants will not only generate electricity that they can sell to Europe, they will supply drinkable water that will sustain their thirsty populations.”

Could not a similar project simultanously benefit the United States and, say, Mexico?

Climate Change In-action in the US

Time for regulations in the consumer market?

By Sarah Boll  

There have been to two reports in the news recently that indicate it might be time for some governmental regulations in the area of energy efficiency in order to mitigate climate change risks in the U.S.

The first was the 4th and final report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, released on 17 November, which summarized and integrated the most significant findings of three sections of a climate-science review that were released between January and April. Because the data had not previously been reviewed as a whole, scientists said the synthesized report was more explicit, creating new emphasis and alarm (especially about the rate and scope of sea-level rise). This report elicited a response from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon calling specifically on China and the US to step up their game, as the 2 largest GHG emitters, in the area of emissions reductions.The second, from McKinsey & Company and created for DTE Energy (the parent company of Detroit Edison), Environmental Defense, Honeywell, National Grid, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Pacific Gas & Electric and Shell, states that the United States could shave as much as 28 % off the amount of greenhouse gases it emits at fairly modest cost and with only small technology innovations. It focuses on more energy efficient homes and consumer products, such as computers, where currenlty, the supplier sees no competitive advantage to supplying low energy products which in turn leaves the average consumer with no choice but to purchase the energy inefficient house or computer. Hence the need for mandatory regulations to force the system to correct these deficiencies.

Now is the time to turn the tide. Suppliers have not historically spent the extra money on more expensive energy efficient products, not willing to take the risk that they will be in demand by consumers, which in turn does leave most consumers with no choices. If the only way to get suppliers to start creating these options for the average consumer (ie not the folks in the highest tax bracket) is to make it mandatory then perhaps that is the next step that should be put into play, and the sooner the better. As far as the consumers go, having to incur higher up-front costs for a more energy efficient product may take some getting used to, but shouldn’t be that hard to stomach when compared to a larger savings over the life-time of the product. The craziest thing of all is that producers will still be making profits and consumers will be saving money, these are the side effects of cutting out the 28% of carbon emissions mentioned in the McKinsey & Company report. Why is this such a hard sell?

Wal-Mart: Giving Sustainablity the Advantage

By Sarah Boll  

Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott (picture) states in the company’s CSR “We have found that there is no conflict between our business model of everyday low costs and everyday low prices and being a more sustainable business.” And we were surprised when Rupert Murdoch said NewsCorp was going to blaze new paths in how mass media can fight climate change!

With more than 68,000 supplier partnerships, 1.5 million empowered associates, and the buying power of more than 100 million customers a week, Wal-Mart has the opportunity to make real strides in the area of sustainable consumerism that they see as a competitive advantage over their competitors, of course! And the company is getting down to business with a myriad of sustainable practices either in action or under development that include:

  • Improved the efficiency of its transportationfleet by 15%
  • Sold 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs
  • Recycling - previously mentioned by Lois
  • Is designing a store that will use 30% less energy and produce 30% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than their 2005 design within the next 3 years
  • Is working with suppliers to reduce packaging by 5% by 2013 - an effort equal to removing 213,000 trucks from the road.
  • Developing common-sense ‘Green’ scorecards for customers that encourage making informed choices about environmentally preferable products.
  • Offers a number of sustainable products from seafood to laptops.

It is good to see a company with so much sway in the consumer goods market taking positive and effective action to offer sustainable products, even if they are doing it to try and drive any remaining competitors out of business, what they learn along the way can help industry all over the world find sustainability solutions. Even with these innovations Wal-Mart’s CO2 emissions increased over-all last year due to company expansion, hopefully they will also strike a good balance between growth and sustainability

Largest Biomass Power Station in the World

Have woodchips, will travel.

By Sarah Boll  

The Port Talbot Renewable Energy Plant to be built by Prenergy Power in South Wales will use wood chips from sustainable forests located in the U.S., Canada, Eastern Europe, and South America.

The folks from Prenergy feel that harvesting the biomass from sustainable forests will offset the bad green mojo from having it transported by ship from all over the world. On the plus side the plant will displace 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 that would have been spewed out by the older power plants in the area. The $829 million project will also meet 70% of the Welsh renewable energy target for 2010.

In other traveling biomass news, Renegy Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RNGY) announced today that it has executed and closed a definitive Asset Purchase Agreement with a leading forest products and timber company for the acquisition of an idle biomass power plant for $1.3 million that can power as many as 13,000 homes. But in this case, instead of relocating the biomass Renegy is considering relocated the entire plant from its current site in Susanville, California to a more suitable location. The current location would probably have been suitable if all the available biomass in Cali wasn’t getting shipped to Wales.

New Austrialian PM-Elect Rudd Will Ratify Kyoto

Bush, U.S. left out in the cold on warming.

By Daniel Gurvich  

Kevin Rudd And then there was one…

Australia is well on its way to becoming the 173rd nation to ratify the Kyoto accord, which sets binding international reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions. Incoming Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has pledged to ratify the agreement “as soon as possible”. The significance on this side of pond? Huge. Conservative John Howard, trounced in yesterday’s landslide Labour victory, has been a staunch ally of the Bush administration in its opposition to Kyoto. Without Howard’s support, the Bush Administration will find itself in the awkward role of last remaining holdout among industrialized nations.

What’s more, the timing could not have been better. Rudd, who has repeatedly called on the U.S. to step up its commitment to Kyoto, plans to personally attend next week’s global climate change summit in Bali. He has called climate change “the great moral, environmental and economic challenge facing the world”.

Australia has been coping with its worst drought in over a century, and a strong climate change platform was a key factor in Rudd’s decisive victory. Let’s hope that the issue proves equally critical in our own upcoming presidential elections. Meanwhile, Rudd has his work cut out for him domestically. The Aussies are prodigious burners of fossil fuels, with highest per-capita emissions in the world. The geographically spread-out nation will need to scramble to play catch-up, and a story in London’s Daily Telegraph demonstrates the perils of delay

Meeting the country’s original 2012 target would entail stringent, costly and probably unpopular measures in raising energy efficiency and switching to renewable sources. Australia had originally pledged to keep emissions growth to eight per cent above 1990 levels. As of 2005, the latest year for which figures are available, it was 25.6 per cent in excess of the 1990 benchmark, according to UNFCCC figures issued last week.

Still, better late than never. We hope that Congress and the 2008 presidential contenders are paying attention.

Real Trees: The Difference Between Naughty or Nice?

The age old debate of a real versus fake Christmas tree.

By Sharif Virani  

While Christmas without a real tree might seem crazy to some, you can’t help but stop and wonder as a “treehugger” how sustainable of a tradition is it?

Before revealing which practice is greener for wear, I am going to outline a few true tree facts.

For the most part Christmas trees are grown are specialized tree farms, these trees are generally allowed to grow for about 10-15 years before being cut and in that time provide a valuable service to outlying and nearby communities by providing oxygen and processing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It is estimated that approximately one acre of Christmas trees provides enough oxygen for 18 people every day. If you consider how many acres of these trees there are in the United States alone, which is around 500 000 acres, they could probably supply enough oxygen for around 9-10 million people everyday!

Now back to the carbon dioxide, forests and oceans are two of our major carbon sinks in the world and pretty much critical to our existence. In the case of forests the growth rate of a tree is directly related to the amount of carbon dioxide in its surrounding atmosphere; the more a tree is pruned and cut, Christmas trees are trimmed quite frequently, the more it grows and consequently processes excess carbon in the atmosphere.

Now you if you’ll excuse me I have to go help with the decoration of our _______ Christmas tree and if you want to know what kind it is check back for part two of this series!

Saudi King Tries to Offset Saudi Prince’s Massive Private Jet with $300 Million to Climate Change Research

Post #37 for the 2007 Green Blogathon

By Shea Gunther  

 From the excellent Environmental Graffiti comes news that the King of Saudi Arabia will be donating $300 million dollars to environmental research.

The King made the announcement during a speech at a gathering of OPEC heads in the Saudi capital of Riyadh, saying: “We will give $300 million for research into helping the environment.”

OPEC had earlier announced that it supported the fight against global warming, and would support initiatives to help fight climate change.

The Saudi King’s gesture may seem like a positive step forward by some, but it seems almost laughable in light of other recent news involving the Saudi royal family. Airbus recently announced that Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal was the first person to purchase their USD 319 M Airbus SAS A380 superjet, for use as a private plane.

Add in another couple of hundred million to retrofit the plane and you have about twice as much money being spent on the plane than the environmental research. Those Saudis sure know how to roll!

New SimCity Game Puts You In Charge Of Environmental Policies

Post #36 for the 2007 Green Blogathon

By Michael d'Estries  

Sometimes, it’s not enough to simply write down your thoughts and discuss environmental issues with others. Sometimes, you just want to be given the reins to enact policy, spur investments, and cut through all the red tape out there to make a greener future. Unless you’re an evil super villain or feel like running for office, chances are that’s not going to happen. However, the makers of the cool computer simulation SimCity have just released a new version that can give you the power to make the world sustainable and in harmony with the environment — all from the comfort of your home.

Called SimCity Societies, you can design cities that either expand or limit their greenhouse-gas contribution and environmental footprint. Players can invest in a mix of power supplies to run their cities, including wind turbines, solar panels, or coal plants. Depending on what themes you choose, either apartment buildings with flower boxes or security cameras will appear. Dark, right? Andrew Revkin of the NY Times reveals a bit more:

“But there are consequences for every decision, which are tracked with a dashboard of sorts that charts the buildup of smog-producing pollution and climate-warming carbon dioxide, as well as higher or lower costs of cleaner or dirtier energy choices. Personal choices of residents matter, too. Walking cuts emissions. Driving adds to them. We zoomed in on a happy lawyer, Myrna Anderson, strolling down her virtual block.”

In an interesting twist, the game features advertising from BP Petroleum alongside clean, green energy schemes. While it’s true that BP has done more to invest in renewable energy than any other oil company, it’s still odd to see such emphasis given to them throughout the game. According to creators, “BP energy experts helped in shaping the scenarios for economic and environmental costs and benefits of various energy options.” They also probably paid a pretty penny to keep that carefully green molded image shiny front and center.

In the end, it’s an interesting “eco” strategy from the SimCity folks. I would personally love to give it a shot and see how difficult/easy it would be to make the world a greener place. As long as virtual Bush Administration isn’t getting in the way, my digital citizens might actually have a chance.

:: SimCity Societies via NY Times




Close
E-mail It