Solutions
-
Should We Make People's Carbon Footprints Public?
-
Brazil Rocks: Deforestation Down 45.7 Percent
-
Thou Shalt Halt Global Warming
The Seeds of a New Kind of Energy
Published November 20, 2009 @ 11:52AM PT
First, a confession.
Last week, in my introductory blog entry I lied to you, the reader. What’s worse, I did it knowing full well that I was lying through my dirty little teeth.
In that entry I said that the highest wind densities in the country are above North Dakota. That was a lie. Well, okay, lie is a strong word. North Dakota does have the strongest wind you can feel when you lick your finger and stick it in the air.
But it’s not the strongest in the country.
Green Tech, Public Good
Published November 14, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
I
n a recent opinion piece, writer David Dickson, director and editor of the Science and Development Network (SciDev.Net) website and former news editor at Nature, writes the following:
A widely-held myth among climate change activists is that discussing the need for improved technology to mitigate or adapt to climate change detracts from political debates on who is to blame for unsustainable lifestyles — and who should pay for their consequences.
First of all, let me just say: ouch! Is it really fair to say that all climate activists care about is blaming people for spewing out too much carbon and rapping the appropriate knuckles? Come on, Mr. Dickson, there's a reading rainbow of people who care about climate out here talking about all different kinds of things, including, yes, who should change their lifestyles and how. But we also talk about technology. We talk a lot about technology.
Where Dickson's article may be right, however, is that we don't tend to talk enough about how these technologies are going to impact the lives of the world's poor. High-tech developments, after all, occur mostly in rich countries and usually aim to mitigate rich countries' carbon sins.
Eat Meat to Help the Earth? You Grass-Hugger!
Published November 02, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Eating meat contributes to climate change, right? Hamburgers must be abolished if we are to save the Earth. Many staunchly support this point of view, while others scoff at what they see as radical buffoonery. But it's not quite so black and white. You see, it all depends on what kind of meat you're talking about.
A recent post of mine on the subject over on the sustainable food blog drew an interesting comment from alert reader Harry Hamil: "it is clear that well designed, intensive grazing of grasslands by domesticated livestock offers the quickest and greatest opportunity to reduce atmospheric carbon."
So, producing meat could actually be good for our climate?
Climate Action Goes Creative
Published October 31, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Last Saturday's International Day of Climate Action was, as Mike Smith wrote on this blog, "the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history." Not only that, but it was fun.
The action was structured around the concept of 350, which is the parts per million of carbon dioxide we can afford to have in our atmosphere.
Enthusiastic participants all over the world made visual depictions of 350 -- using everything from their bodies to sandbags to sailboats to a flotilla of yellow balloons -- and photographed them for the world to see. The curious one that heads this post was generated by lantern walkers in Sydney, Australia.
So what's so important about 350 and how can you get in on the fun?
Global Warming and Meat: A Debate with a Bite
Published October 29, 2009 @ 06:37AM PT
Writing about the clean-energy potential of pig manure yesterday got me thinking: We've been writing frequently over on the sustainable food blog about the growing consensus that the meat industry is a major contributor to global warming. More and more people are saying what a lot of others don't want to hear: eating a low-meat diet is one of the most effective ways of shrinking your carbon footprint.
The most high-profile figure to expound this idea is the UK's Lord Stern of Brentford, a leading figure in climate change studies, who recently told the Times of London that "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Stern himself is not a strict vegetarian, which is a great illustration of an important point in this debate: You don't have to disavow meat entirely to start using your eating choices to make a difference on climate change.
U.S. Carbon Emissions Plummeting
Published October 14, 2009 @ 05:37PM PT
Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, reports today on the Institute Website that the United States “has now entered a new energy era, one of declining emissions. Peak carbon is now history.”
I’m so used to doom and gloom on the topic of cutting emissions that I had to look at this twice. Could it be true, as Brown contends, that “what had appeared to be hopelessly difficult is happening at amazing speed”?
Well, he’s got a chart, so it must be true. It shows a steadily climbing line representing “U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions” starting just over 600 million metric tons in 1950 and peaking at over 1,600 in the middle of this decade. The striking part is the precipitous decline over the last few years. It looks like we’re somewhere down around 1,500 now, and falling.
Brown reports that extrapolated data for 2009 will reveal a 5 percent drop in U.S. oil use this year and a 10 percent decline in coal use. The last two years have seen a 9 percent reduction in U.S. carbon emissions from burning all fossil fuels. It seems to be true! As Brown says: “the energy efficiency revolution that is now under way will transform everything from lighting to transportation.”
Obama Establishes Enviro, Energy Targets for Federal Government
Published October 05, 2009 @ 05:48PM PT
The Obama administration today ordered federal agencies to aim for aggressive targets to reduce energy use, and incorporate environmental sustainability in federal government operations.
The executive order "Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance," signed today by President Obama, builds off an executive order signed by President Bush in 2007, as well as momentum created by clean energy and energy-efficiency measures funded by the stimulus act.
Under this new mandate, federal agencies must set 10-year energy reduction and environmental sustainability goals within the next 90 days. Clearly identified targets in the order include:
- 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020;
- 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020;
- 50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015;
- 95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements;
- Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement;
- Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438; and
- Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
