emissions

What Will McCain and Obama Do About Nuclear Power?

jplatt — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:34:26 -0400

When it comes to the environment, few topics cause as much debate and friction as nuclear energy.

On the one hand, nuclear energy is relatively clean, creating no emissions and running at relatively low cost.

On the other hand, the byproducts of nuclear energy production take hundreds of years to become safe. They pose security questions, and no one seems to want the waste stored in the backyards.

Energy policies are obviously critical to this election, so it might come as a surprise to you that both candidates are actually pro-nuke.

Both McCain and Obama told ScienceDebate2008.com that nuclear power is critical to this country's ability to generate electricity without producing carbon emissions. Says Obama, "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option."

But Obama takes a hard-line look at nuclear security: "However," he says, "before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation."

As for McCain, he tells ScienceDebate2008.com it's time to "recommit" to nuclear energy. He says he will "put the country on track" to build 45 new reactors in the next 20 years. Obviously, that's well past any term he would serve, but if he puts the investment in during his time in office, it's unlikely that any future administration would pull the plug.

So how about the issue of nuclear waste storage? Writing on his web site, Obama says he does "not believe that the current Yucca Mountain site is suitable." He promises to develop requirements for waste storage "using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available." McCain has historically been pro-Yucca Mountain, but he has also called for the creation of an "international" site, although he has also suggested opening an international center overseas to store nuclear waste. (In other words, "Not in my backyard.")

So how do you feel about nuclear power? Will either candidates' position sway your vote? Let us know!

Ditch That Old Clunker -- And Get Paid

khallgeisler — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Conventional eco-wisdom says that driving an older car into the ground is better than tossing it into the junk yard and buying a gleaming new one off the showroom floor. It's true that it's better to keep still-usable materials out of landfills, but those tailpipe emissions aren't doing our air quality any favors, not to mention the poor fuel economy. So, how about if we sweeten the deal?

Some states are offering a bit of green incentive to drivers of older, more polluting vehicles. In Texas, for example, low-income drivers in the major metro areas can get up to $3,500 in credit toward a new car purchase as part of its "Drive a Clean Machine" program.

In its ongoing struggle against smog, California is offering up to $1,500 toward the purchase of a new car if the old one fails its emissions test, or $500 toward the price of repairing the car enough to pass the test.

The biggest state of them all, Canada (some call it a country), will offer $300 in cold, hard Loonies to drivers who ditch their old cars. They can also choose a discount on a bicycle or transit pass, if they'd prefer.

It almost goes without saying, but the car manufacturers are big fans of these programs, especially after being hit so hard in the sales department this spring. They are tactful enough noto mention that programs like these can help them out of a double-digit sales slide, instead couching their enthusiasm in concern for the environment.

These programs require millions of dollars to run, but it's worth it in places like Los Angeles and Dallas-Ft. Worth to clean up the smog. If you live in one of these cities, take full advantage by trading in your 10-year old car and buying the hybrid you know you covet.

Photo by bcostin.

5 Green Reasons to Telecommute

jplatt — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:01:09 -0400

Back when I worked in an office, I often used to spend an hour every day driving to work, after which I would sit alone in my cubicle for eight hours before turning around and driving an hour back home.

Working from home hasn't changed much for me -- I still spend eight hours a day in front of a computer, and I rarely interact with anyone face-to-face, but my commute is now a ten-foot walk, I am more relaxed, and my work has improved.

In other words, I'm a happy worker, and my employers get the benefit of my happiness -- all of which comes from not having to commute.

Here are five green-tech reasons why any business should consider letting its employees telecommute at least a few days a week, if not all of the time:

1. Having employees work in remote locations cuts a business's on-site electricity needs. (Sure, the cost is passed on to the employee, but they're spending less on gas, and don't have huge infrastructure costs -- such as air conditioning and garbage disposal -- so it should more than even out.)

2. Working remotely encourages the growth and usage of online videoconferencing technologies, which efficiently allow people to meet without first having to travel half-way around the world. This saves both money and greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Traffic drives people crazy. Literally. According to a recent study, commuting takes a terrible toll on an employee's psychic health. Keep your employees healthy, happy and more productive by letting them work from home.

4. Companies can reduce their real-estate needs when employees telecommute. Sun saved $387 million over the last 6 years through its Open Work program, under which more than half of its work force telecommutes at least part-time. (Read more about Sun's Open Work Concept and its incredible results here.)

5. Some states offer incentives to companies or their employees to reduce air pollution. For example, Oregon offers employers tax credits for initiating transportation and telework projects, and employees can earn vouchers good at local stores for every 45 days they log using alternative transportation methods.

Now, not every employee can telecommute. Anyone who's actually needed on-site (nurses, construction workers, and a thousand others) won't be able to benefit from working from home. But there's still a solution: flex-time. When 90% of the populace works 9-5, we get traffic and rush hours and extra pollution. But if we shifted some jobs to 6-2 or 12-8, a lot of that traffic and pollution would go away. Something to think about...

Saving The World One Plate At A Time

scleaver — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Choosing climate-healthy foods at the grocery store, with never-ending aisles of packaged foods, overflowing bins of produce from around the world, and walls of stocked freezer cases, presents an obvious challenge. But, a new study, discussed at WorldChanging.com, approaches this conundrum with one question: which is more important? The food you eat, or where that food is grown?

In short, the food you eat is more important. While local food is always a better choice than food imported from across the country or the globe, the next time you’re planning your meals, the best thing you can do to eat climate-friendly is just say No to beef. Red meat, compared to cereals, chicken, dairy products, produce, and oils, has the largest impact on the climate. (If you want to take it a step farther, cut out dairy, it ranked second in the amount of emissions produced.)

A hopeful finding from the study: small shifts in food choices can have a huge impact on the climate. If we consumers switched 12 percent of our meat and dairy food choices to veggie-based foods, it would have the same impact on the climate as going 100 percent local for all food purchases.

Need help replacing that weekly burger?

Vegetarian Kitchen has information about eating a vegetarian diet.

VegWeb has vegan recipes and shopping tips.

The International Vegetarian Union has vegetarian recipes from around the world.

And, Vegetarian Cooking has even more veggie recipes.

Image from Runner's World article about eating vegetarian for performance.

How to Get Carbon Free in 10 Years – Reduce Global Warming

susan — Thu, 22 May 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Cutting your carbon footprint is one thing - but becoming carbon free in 10 years? Sounds impossible? Putting out ZERO carbon emissions requires major deprivation and sacrifice, right? Not so. You’d be amazed at how simple, painless changes can help you snag the gold ring -- saving yourself money and saving the planet from fire and (melting) ice.

Now for the details: I found one of the best step-by-step breakdowns of how one family can do it in Yes Magazine. This helpful article takes a hypothetical family of three and proposes changes they’ll need to make each year to go from producing 60,000 pounds of carbon emissions per year to zero.Here’s a sampling of what you can do to make the biggest difference - with the least effort and expense. Remember, even if you can’t do it all and get to ZERO, taking any of these actions will be a move in the right direction.

Year 1

Switch to CFLs
Wash clothes in cold water and air dry them
Turn off the computer when not in use
One adult commutes by bus three days a week

Year 2

Insulate attic and basement
Insulate heat ducts
Patch air leaks around the home

Year 3

Commute by bus daily
Sell second car
Weatherize windows and doors

Year 4

Take train (not plane) when you go on vacation

Year 5

Trade in old car for an electric model

Year 6

Lower hot water heater temp
Insulate hot water heater and pipes
Replace old refrigerator with energy-efficient model
Eliminate second refrigerator

Years 7 to 10

Vacation close to home
Buy energy-efficient washing machine
Convert to solar hot water system
Commute by electric bikes 8 months of the year
Replace furnace with electric heat pump that also cools
Buy certified green, renewable power from their electric company

Now that wasn’t so hard was it?

For more details, see Yes Magazine.

For more on Reducing Your Carbon Footprint:

Carbon Footprints

What Exactly is a Carbon Footprint?

Reducing Your Carbon Footprint From Travel

Wash Your Carbon Footprint Away

The Quest For The Perfect Carbon Calculator

Selling Carbon Credits on eBay—Solution or Scam?

Marcus — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Buying and selling carbon emissions as a means to lower your carbon footprint is a trend that has significantly grown in popularity in recent years. Corporations frequently purchase carbon credits in order to offset high emissions levels, helping the carbon trade blossom into a multimillion-dollar industry. For the environmentally conscious individual, however, for whom trading carbon on the corporate level is not a feasible option, there is another alternative: eBay.

Here’s how it works: small farms and, essentially, anyone who takes the initiative to plant trees can sell carbon offsets equivalent to the amount of metric tons of CO2 consumed by the number of trees that have been planted (typically, one tree will consume between 3 and 4 metric tons over the course of its lifetime). So, let’s say you sell one tree’s CO2 consumption for twenty bucks. If each tree costs about fifty cents to plant, plus about another fifty or so cents to mail some sort of carbon certificate to your buyer, you’re making about a $19 profit before eBay and PayPal fees. That’s an enormous gain. So, by just planting some trees and advertising on eBay, you can conceivably make some serious bank, and help combat global warming in the process. Sounds great, right?

Well, not exactly. With so many people eager to join the emissions trading frenzy (and hopefully make a quick buck in the process), quality control is difficult to monitor. eBay posts promise certificates guaranteeing the authenticity of the carbon sale, but who can definitively verify whether offsets from the same tree have been sold multiple times, or that trees are being planted in proportion to sold credits at all? Further, carbon credit vending on the corporate scale is easier to regulate due to its magnitude and relative uniformity on a global level. In the private sector, however, things get more complicated. Carbon credits can be sold for as much as any SUV-driving, gas-guzzling citizen with a desire to green their life is willing to pay. Since carbon trading is a relatively new phenomenon, there is no standard in place to prevent people from getting ripped off.

In short, while buying and selling carbon credits online is certainly a novel idea, if you’re going to try it out, do so with caution. You’re probably better off just planting some trees in your backyard.

Want to learn more about carbon credits?

How to Measure and Price Carbon Credits

Carbon Footprints

The Quest for the Perfect Carbon Calculator

How Much Do Carbon Credits Cost?

Build a Greener Web Site or Blog

jplatt — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:00:00 -0400

I love reading magazines online. I can instantly surf to the stories I want to read, and there are no paper copies to recycle. Nothing could be greener, right?

But what about all of that energy that goes into displaying a web site on my computer screen? My computer is using power, and so are the computers and servers that deliver that site to me. And if I found the site through Google or some other search engine, a whole new set of energy-burning devices enters the equation. Every click I make means power plants are spewing more carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Meanwihle, I have several web sites of my own, plus a few blogs. All of them burn energy every time someone looks at them.

What's a green-thinking web-surfer/site owner to do?

One solution is CO2Stats -- a free widget you can easily add to your web site or blog (and which I just added to my blog here). The CO2Stats widget monitors how much electricity is being used to power my site. It displays a tiny, unobtrusive advertisement, and the CO2Stats Project uses that income to invest in renewable energy projecs to offset my site's carbon emissions. Meanwhile, the widget displays an estimate of how much CO2 has been offset by my site, and reminds visitors that they can act greener, too.

For businesses who want to green-up their sites, there's also a paid version ($9.95 a month) which is advertising-free and provides detailed analytics of your site's visitors.

Do you have other ideas on creating a greener web site? Let's hear them!

Tell CARB You're Not That Into Smog

khallgeisler — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:00:00 -0400

As anyone who watched the 2006 documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" knows, the California Air Resources Board really dropped the ball a few years ago regarding zero-emissions vehicles, especially electric cars. They're about to do it again.

On March 27, CARB will vote on a proposal to literally decimate the number of Zero-Emissions Vehicles in the state of California. Currently, California requires 25,000 of the cars on the road to be ZEVs, but the new proposal would lower that number to 2,500. As the Electric Auto Association points out, that would mean the six largest automakers who sell cars in this country only have to build a measly 850 ZEVs a year.

According to the EAA, CARB is making this move because auto manufacturers say they can't produce enough hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles to meet the current number until 2012 or so. This is likely true; they could, however, be churning out electric vehicles to meet that number while we all wait for hydrogen technology to catch up.

Check out CARB's site for the full text of the proposal in seven not-so-easy-to-read PDFs. (They're written in that legalise we all love.) There's also an enlightening comments log, with entries from local businesses, electric vehicle groups, and regular, old, clean-air-lovin' citizens.

You may not think this has much to do with you if you don't live in California, but when it comes to environmental laws, California tends to be a bellweather for the rest of the country. It's a fight at least worth following. If you're amped to do more, the Electric Auto Association has contacts and sample scripts for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and CARB.

Photo by nahasopetalon.

Carbon Footprints

scleaver — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:56:58 -0500

The Ethicurean had an interesting blog post, Thinking About Carbon "Foodprints" on March 2nd about a recent New Yorker article that explores the topic. The basic problem: how we make and get our food produces too much carbon emissions. The Pew Center on Climate Change estimates that agriculture generates 14% of greenhouse gases worldwide, factor in the 18% produced by land use changes and forestry, and the 18% that the UN estimates are caused by livestock (in their report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”) and it’s no wonder that we’re starting to measure food miles in terms of carbon production. But, after discussing how tricky it is to actually measure carbon footprints for something as simple as a lamb, or as complex as a jar of peanut butter (its more than transport, it’s also what type of fertilizer is used, how the peanuts were grown, etc), the solution may not be eating local. What is the solution, then? I like the idea of having carbon footprint labels on food, to let consumers know just how sustainable their hamburger or frozen pizza is, or a simpler plan might just be to tackle the key ingredients in agriculture—go meat free a few days a week (to cut down on carbon emissions from livestock), buy local produce as much as possible (to cut down on the carbon produced by clearing land for agriculture and the carbon cost to transport it), and be aware of the companies that you’re buying from (to encourage companies to reduce carbon emissions to keep your business).

Here’s the Pew Center on Climate Change Report and the Livestock's Long Shadow Report.

Photo taken from www.foodcarbon.co.uk. Check out their Food Carbon Footprint Calculator!

Want to learn more about carbon credits?

How to Measure and Price Carbon Credits

Selling Carbon Credits on eBay—Solution or Scam?

The Quest for the Perfect Carbon Calculator

How Much Do Carbon Credits Cost?

The Quest For The Perfect Carbon Calculator

Marcus — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:00:50 -0500

Ok, so let’s say I’m an average dude with a penchant for saving the environment. I know I want to reduce my carbon footprint, and I know that there are a wealth of carbon calculators available to me on various eco-friendly sites across the web. The question is: which one do I use? Which carbon calculators offer the most straightforward, easy-to-use, yet helpful and informative data? Well, I did some investigative net-surfing and tried to find out.

I quickly realized that this task wasn’t going to be easy. With so many options to choose from, and each calculator boasting a more thorough and accurate emissions estimate than the next, I was fairly discombobulated right off the bat. I was at first drawn to the most aesthetically pleasing sites, which lured me in with their bright colors and pretty pictures, most notably www.BeGreenNow.com and www.CarbonFund.org. Upon further inspection, however, I grew disenchanted. Both sites require an inordinate amount of math and, being a man who hasn’t really calculated anything since the SAT, I became a tad overwhelmed. Additionally, I don’t have any offhand idea about how many miles I’d traveled by plane in the last 12 months, or how many gallons of oil I’d used. Not only do many carbon calculator sites require arithmetic, they also demand a great deal of research. (Some less attractive, yet equally convoluted sites include www.CarbonFootprint.com, www.ZeroFootprint.com and www.SafeClimate.net). Besides, if you know the number of miles you’ve traveled by subway off the top of your head, chances are you already have a pretty good idea about your carbon impact, and probably wouldn’t benefit too much from a carbon calculator in the first place. No, I needed something simpler- a useful tool for the environmentally conscious layman who wants to make a small, personal difference.

The sites that I found to be the most effective were the ones that devised ways to estimate carbon emissions without asking users to provide obscure specifics, i.e. the kilograms of coal they use in a year. For example, averaging my monthly electric bill is a lot simpler than adding up kilowatt hours over a twelve month period. The sites that excel most at this technique are www.ClimateCrisis.net (not too surprising, since this site is run by the environmental guru himself, Mr. Al Gore), www.GreenTagsUSA.com, and www.Nature.org. Another useful tactic employed by these sites is that they estimate airline travel by asking approximately how many short, medium, and long flights you’ve been on in the past year, whereas some sites, like Be Green Now, require that you list not only all of your destination cities, but also the airport (and airport code!) you used during your travels. One particular feature I enjoyed on the Nature site was a handy little pie chart, breaking down your personal CO2 emissions and comparing them to the national average. Neat.

In short, if you’re looking for a carbon calculator, the simpler the better. One important thing to remember, though, is that these calculators provide an estimate- the results I received for my own emissions fluctuated significantly with different sites. The best course of action is to use carbon calculators as a compass to roughly gauge where you stand on the emissions scale, and then to be proactive about it. In other words, stop running up your electric bill whiling away the hours online and install an energy efficient lightbulb already.

Want to learn more about carbon credits?

How to Measure and Price Carbon Credits

Selling Carbon Credits on eBay—Solution or Scam?

Carbon Footprints

How Much Do Carbon Credits Cost?