Sciencecology and the Environment
This webpage was put together in response to demand for ideas and experiences where science and ecology can come together to preserve the environment. Keep the feedback coming!Earth Day is April 22nd
National Geographic's Ecosystem Quiz
Global Warming
In this section we look at the impact of global warming on the environment, how technology can curb global warming, how regulations can reduce global warming, and how nature struggles to correct the rise of greenhouse gases.1956 View of Climate Change
Gilbert Plass, one of the first scientists who raised the alarm of climate change, wrote in 1956:
"It is interesting that two of the most important methods available at the present time for generating large amounts of power have serious disadvantages when used over long time intervals. The burning of fossil fuels increases the temperature of the earth from the carbon dioxide effect; the use of nuclear reactors increases the radioactivity of the earth. It is difficult to say which of these effects would be the less objectionable after several centuries of operation."
No More Winter in 25 Years?
In 25 years, American and Japanese scientists suggest that perpetual summer will reign. This prediction is based on the Arctic ice cover of 2007 shrinking to its smallest size in recorded history. If I understand the reports from climatologists of many nations, natural ice will become a thing of the past. The so called “tipping point” has been reached and the remaining Arctic ice cover does not stand a chance of rejuvenating itself. It is just too hot.
Observations such as disappearing ice sheets are real evidence of rising global temperatures, not some measurements made from ocean buoys or satellite recordings. The ice is melting and even the nation’s of the world want to plant their flags in the Arctic to control the natural resources now being revealed and made accessible by a reluctant mother nature. Imagine the top of the world dotted with oil drilling rigs like those in the North Sea or Hibernia or the Gulf of Mexico.
And all of this in one lifetime - mine! Ice hockey will become an antiquated sport and the Zamboni manufacturer will go out of business.
As I’ve often heard from my elders, “What is this world coming to?” Besides, where will Santa Claus live now? - a question I expect to be hearing from my grandchildren one day.
A federal appeals court invalidates the Bush administration’s year-old fuel-economy standards for light trucks and sport utility vehicles because they failed to take into account the economic risks of climate change.
September 2007:
A federal judge in Vermont delivered another rebuff to the Bush administration when he ruled that states had the authority to restrict carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks, meanwhile demolishing every argument advanced by industry as to why it could not cost-effectively improve automobile efficiency.
April 2007:
In April, the Supreme Court rejects the Bush administration’s argument that it had no authority to regulate carbon dioxide from motor vehicles and, in effect, ordered the Enviromental Protection Agency to come up with a plan for doing so.
The good news for climate change advocates with the latest decision in California is that the U.S. Department of Transportation, which sets mileage standards, must now assess the economic impact of tailpipe emissions on climate change when calculating the costs and benefits of any new rules. The DOT had violated federal law by assigning a zero benefit to reducing emissions even though many studies have said that the costs of unchecked global warming could be very high. The court further ruled that the department had failed to supply a plausible explanation for treating light trucks and S.U.V.’s more leniently than ordinary cars.
These ruling comes at an important time for taking action instead of rhetoric. The U.S. Congress is beginning to consider global warming legislation, the E.P.A. is fashioning a response to the Supreme Court, the State Department is preparing for a new round of global climate talks in Bali, and everyone is worried about the cost of oil. The California decision should help persuade all these players that the time for delay and denial is long past.
Source; NYTimes Editorial, November 18, 2007
2006 is Warmest on Record
2006 was statistically indistinguishable from 2005 and 1998 as the hottest year on record for planet Earth. The U.S. NOAA reports that global temperatures have increased at a rate of 1/3 of a degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years. This increase matches the increase in the rise of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Similar data was provided by the MET in the U.K., with 2006 as the hottest year on record. The Koslowsky family can attest to that fact as we endured sweltering heat in London in July 2006. The record heat of 2006 is the fifth year in a row for record heat in the U.K. It sure would have been nice to experience some of that famous London rain and fog!
Image of Earth as seen from Apollo 8 - Earthshine - courtesy of NASA
Earth's Temperature the Hottest in Centuries
The National Academy of Sciences reports that the Northern Hemisphere is the hottest it has been in two thousand years, while the entire Earth is the hottest it has been in four hundred years. The planet is running a fever and during the twentieth century the Northern Hemisphere temperature rose by one degree.
The relentless rise of global temperatures correlates with the rise of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.
Image courtesy of NOAA.
Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is an excellent documentary that succinctly captures the essence of the Global Warming challenge. The movie ends with a call to action for all of us. There is much we can do on an individual scale to reverse the excess carbon we generate each day. Some ideas are presented below to the right - items 4., 5., and 6. - in 'What Can I Do About the Environment.'
Poster for the movie - An Inconvenient Truth.
Be sure to see the movie and pick at least one or two things that you will do to be part of the solution to global warming.
Researchers suggests that the Arctic ice will be gone in five years.
 | After only 90 years of intensive exploitation of fossil fuels, the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro have all but disappeared. The increased CO2 content has raised the average global atmospheric temperature, resulting in the disappearance of snow-capped mountains and glacial ice.Graphic on the left courtesy of the United Nations. Graphic on the right courtesy of Ohio State University. It reflects the reduction of the ice surface area on the mountain for the years 1912, 1953, 1976, 1989, and 2000. In a few more years there will be NO ice left on Mount Kilimanjaro. |  |
|---|
Impact of Global Warming on the World's Mountains
What happens to rocks as the glacial ice and permafrost supporting them rapidly melts?
For one thing, in the Swiss Alps, rockfalls become more frequent and more intense.
Geologist Hans Keusen reports that the rate at which rockfall in the Eiger region has increased from 66 centimeters per day to 92 cm in the month of July 2006 alone.
In addition to looking right and then left when crossing mountain roads, please also look up!
Vehicles with Better Gas Mileage Cut Global Warming
According to the Sierra Club, if automobile companies produced cars that obtained 40 mpg, global warming pollution would be cut by 600 million tons annually and consumers would save more than $45 billion each year at the gas pump.
Higher fuel economy standards would also create more jobs. In the automobile industry alone, 40,000 new jobs would be created.
Consider purchasing your next vehicle that can achieve at least 40 miles per gallon.
European Union Politicians Agree to 20% Cut in GHGs
The environmental ministers of the European Union agreed in February 2007 to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent below their 1990 levels by 2020. If other countries around the world step up to the plate, a 30 percent cut can be acheived by the EU. This is a direct message to countries like the United States and Australia that have not yet signed up to the Kyoto Protocol and to developing countries like India and China who are the fastest growing contributors to the increase in GHG emissions.
Regulations Begin to Curb Global Warming
California regulators banned power companies from buying electricity from high-polluting sources. The ban, effective February 1, 2007, includes electrical energy coming from out-of-state coal-burning plants.
The ban is in support of the recent law AB32, aimed at reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. Even though there are almost no coal-fired plants in California, these new rules would affect about 20 percent of electricity coming from coal plants outside of the state.
As Michael Peevey, president of the Public Utilities Commission said, "It represents a significant milestone in our ongoing efforts to address the challenge of climate change."
Grasslands Reduce Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
Global warming is mitigated with healthy grasslands that remove thousands of pounds of carbon from the air each year. Grass is able to do this by storing most of the carbon underground, in the form of soil humus. If the agricultural industry could bring itself to feed American cows grass from well managed pastures across the sixteen million acres of land currently used to grow corn for their feed instead, fourteen billion pounds of carbon would be removed from the atmosphere each year.
People would also gain the added benefit of eating healthier beef since grass-fed cows produce a better product, high in omega-3 fatty acids.
Framing the Global Warming Debate
After watching this video, you will feel that our future will be left up to a choice made in a row or a column, or rather, guessing at rows or columns. We can only gamble or control as to what will happen in a given column. With the RH column choices, if we lose the gamble, we no longer know the world as we know it today. If we win, however, the change will be huge!
When faced with certainty, the only choice left is the LH column. Acting outweighs the choice of not acting.
Don’t choose the RH column because we only get to play this game once.
Congressional Meeting for the Public on Global Warming
The theme of an August 2006 Congressional event “Meeting the Challenge of Global Warming,” was hosted by Lynn Woolsey, Congresswoman for California’s 6th District. She intoned “Now is the time for action.” And she may be correct in her exhortation in light of the unanimity of scientists on the dangers of global warming, the extensive media coverage on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), and the popularity of Al Gore and his movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ The climate (no pun intended) is right for individuals to integrate the ideas of global warming mitigation into their daily lives.
Lynn insisted global warming is a national security issue. Conflicts are already appearing around the world for drinking water, food, and energy, as evidenced by the war for oil in Iraq (she posits the war is not about terrorism at all). Lynn believes America has the talent to solve global warming. What America lacks is the political will to do it. Why is Denmark the leader in wind and why is Japan the leader in solar? “Lets get on with it.” Even though Congress is mired in the mud of inaction at the Federal level, businesses and local government are taking action and not waiting for Federal initiatives. Thousands of businesses, government agencies, and individuals are buying hybrid vehicles, installing solar panels, conserving water, building green homes, and more. Recently, Lynn inserted a $2 billion provision to an approved, albeit bad, energy bill for renewable energy research.
With that introduction, Lynn turned over the discussion to five panel members to share with the audience, what is being done, and what needs to be done on the global warning challenge. The power of this event was that it included national, state, and local civic leaders.
The first speaker was Dell Tredinnick from the City of Santa Rosa. He shared with us many of the examples being addressed in the areas of green building, water conservation, renewable energy, efficiency improvements, vehicle upgrades, and GHG reductions. His presentation is comprehensive and is available for those interested. It is impressive to see the diversity of solutions municipalities are leveraging to solve a multitude of local challenges in reducing GHGs.
In the area of green buildings, the city has issued new home construction guidelines and provides a ‘certificate of green building’ at the time of a new home purchase. Initial reports reflect the excitement people have at buying a home that is more environmentally friendly. It is also felt such homes will command a higher resale price. The city is taking special pains to ensure green for affordability too, not just developing building codes and permitting procedures for green homes for the rich. In the water conservation arena, the city is promoting the power of ‘less’ since it requires large amounts of energy to pump water, clean it, and send it to the homes. Dual flush toilets are also being introduced since more water is needed to flush solids than liquids. The user decides which way to flush after going to the bathroom; up for liquid waste and down for solid waste.
The dual flush toilet (male version shown here) reduces the water volume use by 30 percent by saving up to half a gallon per flush.
Solar panels are placed on the golf cart roof, which charge a battery. The package is self-contained and is ideal for service vehicles.
The second speaker was Ann Hancock of the Climate Protection Campaign (CPC) organization. She talked about big vision and bold action but little in the way of concrete examples. The strategy taken in Sonoma County, California is to rally all communities to pledge to reduce green house gases. This action has been a number one priority since GHGs have risen 28 percent since 1990. Both population growth and increasing consumption have been the major contributors. CPC has taken an inventory of solutions in the county and they were able to demonstrate that the 25 percent GHG reductions by 2015 were achievable. Ann pleaded that the audience, the general public, support the efforts of government officials at all levels, since this shift to a green environment is new ground for them. She highlighted that metrics will be easy to track and report on since GHG levels is such a key integrator and metric itself. The idea of “no city left behind” was greeted with enthusiasm, but her comment that “It doesn’t matter what we do,” could have been taken the wrong way. The tact Ann could have taken was to focus on individuals becoming role models for others in their neighborhood and how the eco-energized subdivisions can help their community and city reduce GHG emissions. Such a presentation would come across as more inspirational for the audience. The audience resonated with the required transition from ME to WE in the twenty-first century, especially in terms of sustainability and green energy generation. For sure, many in the audience will pick up their ecobabes calendar too.
Armando Navarro shared some good news that the town of Petaluma, California will pass its green building ordinance by October 2006. The whole idea of green building specifications in the Bay Area was started in Alameda County years ago. [Navarro was right, as Petaluma indeed passed a voluntary ordinance called “Build it Green” in October 2006. http://cityofpetaluma.net/cdd/big/whatispbig.html ] This initiative ensures healthier homes for occupants and the criteria are based on the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard. See http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19 for more information on LEEDs. Armando highlighted that Sebastopol has the highest watt per capita in the Bay Area. In terms of his role at SSU, Armando highlighted the green building professional certificate program. Building examples on site include the Environmental Technology Center completed six years ago and the recently renovated Science Lab to achieve a 50 percent reduction in energy used.
Larry Fahn encouraged the audience to elect an environmental Congress that can effectively combat global warming, which it did in the November 2006 mid-term elections. One example of government stupidity is the DOD freeze on all Wind Farm installations that interfere with U.S. radar sites. This not only stops the progress of renewable energy generation but delays the large number of jobs that are being created with renewable energy installations. Larry shared with us the success the city of Seattle achieved with its GHG emission cuts of 60 percent. This is a sure sign that other cities can duplicate this success and achieve major GHG emission reductions too. Another idea for cities is the notion of Community Choice Aggregation where many buyers of power can combine their needs and but the aggregate power from a green supplier of energy. It is a great example of the purchasing power of a large buyer. Larry tried to correct the false information circulating that California State bill AB32 is a job killer. It is not. Renewable energy investment and deployment creates new high-paying jobs. Larry also planted an idea: consider setting up a shop in the North Bay to convert existing Prius’s to PHEVs to further relieve GHG emissions. [Since August 2006, AB32 was passed into law and the California Public Utility Commission banned the import of electricity coming from polluting coal-burning plants.]
Jeff Rickert of the Apollo Alliance is raising visibility for the Global Warming issue. So far 22 international labor unions have signed up to support the initiative. The objective continues to be to reframe the job versus environmental support debate. Jeff acknowledged their lack of success during the 2004 national election as George W. Bush’s team gained the White House. The Apollo Alliance has moved the battleground to the State and City level by promoting the advantages of clean energy, energy independence, and job creation. From this level, better environmental policy can be moved forward. So far 25 states are on board with these goals. Jeff feels the world is ready to move and places like the towns of Sonoma County can be part of the tipping point to attain a zero-carbon energy goal. For more information please visit http://www.apollochallenge.org/about.html.
The event closed with audience commentary and Q&A. One participant asked, “What can the kids do?” Lynn Woolsey observed that since 25 percent of the population is under 21 there is more that we need to do to get this group actively engaged. Ann said she was part of a program where school-aged children were rewarded for walking and biking to school instead of being driven. They were excited as they could measure a GHG reduction of 25 percent through their efforts. Larry added that we should all work to get the school buses to stop idling along their routes and convince the school districts to put solar panels on the schools’ roofs to generate their own power.
We need to go beyond reduce, reuse, and conserve. The Apollo Group says we can go beyond this by investing in basics (energy efficiency) and creating new job opportunities by buying eco-friendly products.
Promote ‘work from home’ to save energy was also suggested.
Check out Lynn Woolsey’s ‘Progressive Caucus’ on her web site - an effort to elect more progressives to the House in the November 2006 election.
http://cpc.lee.house.gov/
[This effort was successful as more progressive members of Congress were elected in the 2006 mid-term elections.]
Toxicity in Society
The science of chemistry allows eggs to slide off of the frying pan, automobiles to reach 60 mph in less than six seconds, and our armpits to remain odor-free all day long. However, these niceties of modern day life come at a cost - a proliferation of chemicals that include both known toxins and newly synthesized chemicals whose effects on humanity are unknown. Consider the stories below as well as a comprehenisve study on chemical toxicity in the October 2006 National Geographic Magazine with a report called The Pollution Within.This multimedia connection leads to an in-depth story about Our Toxic Homes. Please click on the link to the left.
Leaded Lipstick - Avoid the Reds...
Top make-up brands, such as Cover Girl, L’Oreal, and Dior do not list lead as an ingredient in their red lipsticks, yet this lip-enhancing color tested positive for lead in the fall of 2007. Detectable levels of red, ranging from 0.03 to 0.65 parts per million, were found, with the allowable limit of 0.10 ppm exceeded by many.Who knew kissing your girl friend on the lips would be toxic.
Organochlorines Being Banned
On December 1, 2006, San Francisco was to become the first American city to ban the manufacture, distribution, and sale of baby products containing toxic chemicals, such as bisphenol A and phthalates, in particular.However, the ban, modelled on a similar law adopted by the European Union, has been delayed by a series of lawsuits filed by chemical manufacturers, business associations, toymakers and two San Francisco shops. The argument for delaying the ban is based on a jurisdictional issue - such a ban can only be instituted by the state of California or U.S. federal authorities, not the city.
The proposed ban targets plastic toys, waterproof children’s books, baby bottles, and more. Scientists believe a build-up of these chemicals in developing young children can lead to cancer later in life and developmental problems much sooner.
Rob's recent short story about organochlorines incorporates the city ban as an element of his fictional account.
Sub-Saharan Africa Bans Toxic Leaded Gasoline
This headline in Santa Rosa's Press Democrat newspaper caught my eyes on New Year’s Day. I was shocked to see that there were still parts of the world using leaded gasoline. A sickening feeling settled over me, after the initial shock wore off, since lead, even in very small amounts, causes decreased intelligence in children.
Lead is one of the most pervasive and damaging of the environmental toxins (mercury is another). It was removed from gasoline in Canada, United States, and the European Union in 1990, 1986, and 2000, respectively, when it was shown to be the major cause of damaged brains, weakened nervous systems, and polluted air. The U.S. experience reveals that between 1976 and 1991, the virtual elimination of leaded gasoline led to a 77 per cent drop in average levels of lead in human blood. Lead in the air from vehicle emissions finds its way into children through contaminated soil and water, and hence the food we eat. Africa’s sub-Saharan communities ended the import and processing of leaded gasoline on the first day of 2006.
As the leaded gasoline disappears from the Sub-Saharan area’s distribution system, air quality in Africa’s cities will increasingly improve. A 1999 study done by the World Health Organisation estimated that 15 to 18 million children in developing countries were suffering from permanent brain damage due to lead poisoning. Its a shame that environmental progress we take for granted in the Western World has not extended to other parts of the world as quickly. This level of inaction caused an entire generation of children to experience high levels of toxic poisoning. Let’s insist that those companies required to meet more stringent Western regulations, do so on a global basis in the spirit of ‘doing the right thing.’
If we look at the history of the evolution of gasoline as a fuel, we see how human health was endangered for the sake of corporate profit. Scientisis showed that three grams of tetra ethyl lead or fifteen percent ethyl alcohol both improved the power of gasoline. The lead additive was cheap but it was also a well known poison. Ethyl alcohol was clean and renewable and also helped farmers by consuming crops and keeping nations independent of political oil pressures. Back in the 1920s many countries were already using ethyl alcohol fuels since it proved effective at stopping engine knock. However, the lead additive was cheaper and so corporate Amercia put profit above public health. This was nothing new for American industry, but such disregard for the public good had never been carried out before on such a large scale and with such deadly results.
Oh, and why was I reading the headlines on New Year’s Day? Because I was upset with the NFL for bumping the Rose Bowl Parade and Rose Bowl Game for meaningless yearend football games. I was not going to watch those NFL sleepers, especially when those of us baby boomers over 45 are denied the ability to participate in the NFL’s Rolling Stones Superbowl Halftime Show extravaganza....oh well, back to the headlines that really matter....
Chile Candy Contains Toxic Lead
Children love spicy chile Mexican candy. Too bad it contains lead. Three candy manufacturers agreed to reduce the candy's lead content under a deal with the State of California reached in June 2006. Subsidiaries of Mars, Vero, and Hershey were found to be in violation of Proposition 65, California's anti-toxics law.-- Maria Celia Nolasco, grandmother of three lead poisoned children appealing to the government to do more in 2007.
Nolasco is working to pass stronger laws to protect children from lead in New York City's "lead belt."
Ban Lead Toys
The Illinois Legislature passed a bill in April 2006 banning toys and other things having more than trace amounts of lead. The state government was moved to action after the death of a four-year-old child whose brain swelled after sucking on a charm given away by Reebok.This was no 'happy meal' toy.
Taking it to the federal level is Illinois Senator Barack Obama who is introducing a bill to ban lead toys at the national level.
Protect Children from Lead in Toys
Enjoy this Sierra Club video called "Happy HoLEADays."
Toy Bling Loaded with Lead
In February 2006, an autopsy was conducted on a 4-year old boy in Minneapolis that revealed a Reebok trinket made of 99 percent lead was the cause. It seems ludicrous that such baubles are not banned by the Feds since simply handling lead results in brain damage in children. A 2004 UNC study showed that a child's IQ drops by two points for each 20 seconds this toxic material is handled.Pepsi Paying $1M Fine
Pepsi has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought against it by the State of California and the City of Los Angeles in response to its use of lead-tainted labels. Pepsi has agreed to stop using the toxic labels on bottled soft drinks brought in from Mexico, pay a $1M civic penalty, reimburse $750,000 to reimburse investigative and attorney costs, and pay $500,000 to a fund that monitors lead abatement programs in food.The case highlights the importance of regulation to ensure corporations are held accountable for breaking the law and jeopardizing public health. Pepsi had violated California’s Proposition 65, by failing to warn consumers that the labels contained lead. It was found that the painted labels contained as much as 45 percent lead content. The danger was in lead being transferred from the hand to mouth as a consumer drank Pepsi.
PS: To read more, check out one of the better websites on toxic lead poisoning:
Nuclear Energy Update
First Two New U.S. Nuclear Reactors in 33 Years
General Electric and Hitachi will partner together to construct two new nuclear reactors in the U.S. They are for New Jersey-based NRG Energy and will be built 90 miles southwest of Houston, Texas in Wadsworth along the Gulf Coast. The two plants will deliver a combined capacity of 2,700 megawatts and will utilize GE's Advanced Boiling Water Reactor(ABWR) technology. The reactors will cost $5.2B and are expected to be brought on line in 2014. They will be the first nuclear facilities built in the U.S. since 1973 and bring the total count to 102.
 | NRG's South Texas Project (STP) is considered one of the U.S.'s most productive nuclear power plants. The twin-reactors generate 2,503 megawatts of electricity, serving more than one million homes in Austin, Corpus Christi, Houston, San Antonio, and south central Texas - 5 percent of Texas' energy needs. The plant is managed by the STP Nuclear Operating Company, employing about 1,200 full-time personnel. The two reactors were brought online in August 1988 and June 1989, and are the sixth and fourth newest, respectively, of the 100 licensed to operate nationwide. |
|---|
California Energy Commission (CEC) Upholds Ban on Nuclear Power Plant Construction
In April 2006 the CEC completed its first major review of nuclear power in about three decades. The Commission recommended that a moratorium on nuclear power plant construction remain in force. Its review was prompted by heightened interest in Washington for more nuclear power generation to move the nation towards energy independence and wean itself from fossil fuels.
California halted all nuclear power plant construction in 1976, three years before the Three Mile Island accident and a decade before the Chernobyl disaster. One of the rationales for preventing renewed construction is the lack of storage space for nuclear waste. Currently, spent fuel rods are stored on site at the two existing nuclear power plants in California - Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo and San Onofre in San Diego.
Are Large Nuclear Power Plants the Solution to Energy Independence?
There is much debate about the benefits of using nuclear power to replace fossil fuels. Those on the pro side for nuclear power generation highlight that nuclear does not contribute to air pollution and is a green power source. Those against nuclear cite its potential for deadly destruction to life due to it exploding like an atomic bomb and/or releasing deadly radiation.
Let's examine one ongoing case.
In late February 2005, Pacific Gas and Electric was unanimously granted state regulatory approval to charge California electric utility customers $706M to refurbish the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. Eight steam generators need to replaced after just 20 years of use on a plant that cost $5.8B to build, instead of the estimated $0.35B. If not replaced, the nuclear power plant would have to be decommissioned by 2014 and 2,260 megawatts of electricity found elsewhere.
Anti-nuclear forces contend that this is almost a billion dollars, which could have been used to invest in safe, renewable energy sources instead of high density energy nuclear power. Finding a new source for this twenty percent of nuclear-generated power in the form of renewables and independently generated power seemed plausible by 2014. However, we may never find out, as perpetuation of large, centralized, nuclear-generating plants will likely continue in California and elsewhere.
In Chapter 38 of Rob’s book, in particular the ‘Wind and Solar Power - Environmentally Friendly’ section, he suggests that when selecting an energy solution for a community, city, or region, it should not harm the environment or human health. Fossil fuels are particularly bad in this respect, but were chosen because of the incredible heat they can generate. Liquid oil surpassed solid coal simply because four barrels of oil produce the same amount of energy as one ton of coal. We now know coal is doubly bad for the environment with its open-pit mining and displacement of flora and fauna before it is even processed and then its detrimental air pollution contribution and acid rain damage after it is consumed. Oil is not far behind with its supertanker spills and pipeline breaks killing fish and fowl before it is processed and then its acid rain contribution after it too is consumed. The need to increase the use of renewable energy alternatives is now and before other countries (such as China and India) with even greater populations than North America and Western Europe become further industrialized with a fossil fuel mindset.
Nuclear has less of an impact on the environment than it does on human health. The disaster of Chernobyl, with its high levels of radioactive cesium, for example, illustrated the immediate effects of death by radiation poisoning and the rendering of regions uninhabitable by humans. Chernobyl also highlighted the long-term effects of life-shortening cancers triggered by exposure to radiation. Radiation poisoning is devastating. Cancers caused by radioactive atoms can take years to develop and many of these radioactive substances never even existed until the fission of uranium was used to produce nuclear power.
While fossil fuels and nuclear energy have many negative impacts for humanity and the environment, the renewable energy sources, such as wind energy and solar power do not. The principal factor weighing against these sources of energy is visual. This is due to the large number of massive fans or panels needed to produce equivalent power. The lower energy density has hindered rapid acceptance of wind farms in rural settings and hampered deployment of roof top solar panels in association-run neighborhoods. If the objective is to achieve a higher density energy metric, and accept increasing environmental damage and deteriorating health, then renewable energy cannot compete with liquid oil and the invisible atom. If the objective is to reduce pollution and increase human health and safety, then fossil fuels and nuclear energy cannot compete. The challenge is to strike a balance and thereby accelerate wind farm construction and solar panel deployment. The challenge is further compounded because many people do not want to see rows of wind turbines or arrays of solar panels. However, these are the same people who prefer 'out-of-sight, out-of-mind,' cheap, and abundant energy solutions that cause damage to both humanity and nature. Renewable energy sources provide cost-effective and abundant energy as well, but without these damaging side effects.
Opening of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Dump
The Department of Energy has asked Congress to increase the legal limit of the storage space of the Yucca Mountain, Nevada nuclear-waste respository. The facility still contains no nuclear waste and political delays since 1997 have kept it free of spent nuclear fuel rods. Current estimates say Yucca will not open until 2020. In the meantime, each nuclear power plant stores its nuclear waste in local pools of water. These temporary storage sites across 39 states currently hold about 50,000 metric tons of nuclear waste.
World's First Nuclear Power Plant Decomissioned
England's Calder Hall nuclear power plant began its decommissioning phase in March 2003, after 47 years of generating electric power and producing material for nuclear bombs. It generated enough electricity to power a three-bar electric fire for 2.85 million years.
What is Zero Waste?
Zero Waste is the best use of resources and materials to eliminate waste and pollution. It emphasizes a closed-loop system of production and consumption, moving in logical increments toward the goal of zero waste. This is in the thinking of “you can not build Rome in a day.”The long-term objective in moving towards zero waste is to help each successive generation leave less and less of an ecological footprint on the earth thus allowing more of nature to restore itself. This approach must be taken at the local level with communities helping its citizens push for the following principles:
. Improving 'downstream' reuse and recycling of end-of-life products and materials to ensure their highest and best use,
. Pursuing 'upstream' redesign strategies to reduce the volume and toxicity of discarded products and materials,
. Supporting and promoting low-impact or reduced consumption lifestyles, and
. Fostering and supporting use of discarded products and materials to stimulate and drive local economic and workforce development.
Look for examples of Zero Waste success stories in a community near you!
Scientific and Policy Advances Lead to Less Air Pollution
Clean Air Update 10 (February 2008)
A new metric for “dirty” cars in London, England has arrived. If a vehicle emits more than 225 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer, which includes most 4x4s and SUVs, then the drivers will pay £25 to enter London's congestion zone. The cars that emit the least pay nothing. Sounds like it is time to drive a gas-electric hybrid if you are a Londoner. The extra revenue gained from this larger fee will be used to improve the city’s cycling network.Clean Air Update 9 (May 2006)
Ten Most Polluted U.S. Cities (ozone rated only)1. Los Angeles (including Long Beach and Riverside, California)
2. Bakersfield, California
3. Fresno-Madera, California
4. Visalia-Porterville, California
5. Merced, California
6. Houston (Baytown and Huntsville, Texas)
7. Sacramento (Arden and Arcade, California, and Truckee, Nevada)
8. Dallas/Forth Worth
9. New York (Newark, New Jersey, and Bridgeport, Connecticut)
10. Philadelphia (Camden and Vineland, New Jersey)
Source: American Lung Association (for 2005)
Clean Air Update 8 (March 2006)
Cleaner Air Lowers Mortality RateA new study, published in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, confirms that as a city’s air pollution declines the death rate does as well. There is a direct correlation between them with the test results showing that for each 1 microgram decrease of soot per cubic meter of air there is a 3 percent decrease in mortality from lung cancer, respiratory illness, and cardiovascular disease.
The study was conducted from 1974 to 1998 with participants ranging in age from 25 to 74. Cities involved were in the states of Massachusetts, Tennessee, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Kansas, where air pollution in the form of soot was typically reduced from 27 to 22 micrograms, which corresponded to a 25 percent risk reduction in death.
The impact of reducing air pollution in America is to extend the lives of 75,000 people each year.
Clean Air Update 7 (February 2006 & July 2008)
General Motors' GambleThe number of parts in an automobile defines not only its complexity but its cost. GM is gambling that its hydrogen fuel cell-powered demonstration vehicle, with fewer parts than Toyota’s gas-electric hybrid Prius, will leapfrog its major competitor and allow it to regain its technical and market leadership in the automobile industry. GM is betting that part count will be a significant competitive advantage since a car designed with fuel cell propulsion does not require expensive, precision-machined gears and motor parts. The drive train of a fuel-cell car requires almost no parts, unlike that of a traditional car or a gas-electric hybrid.
From a marketing perspective in February 2006, one could call this gamble by GM a brilliant strategy. However, if the hydrogen fuel-cell offering is not available until 2010, as GM suggested, then one must question the wisdom of touting technical leadership in the face of its chief competitor claiming market leadership while shipping a product already using green technology. In fact, from the vantage point of July 2008, more than 2 years later, GM has not talked about its hydrogen fuel cell car arriving in 2010. GM says it now hopes to have a gas-electric hybrid vehicle like the Prius, called the Chevy Volt available for sale by then. So much for the brilliant marketing strategy.
Besides, who is to say that Toyota or other car manufacturers will not beat GM to the punch in delivering commercially-available hydrogen fuel cell vehicles? If this happens, GM will never be forgiven by its shareholders for telegraphing its product roadmap and tipping off its competition to normally confidential product development plans.
Cartoon courtesy of Cam of the Ottawa Citizen
The good news from all of this is that the world's two largest automobile makers are looking at significantly improving automobile mileage performance due to their intense competitive rivalry. The market forces are beginning to work in the quest for cleaner air.
Clean Air Update 6 (September 2005)
European Automakers Stepping Up to Hybrid TechnologySkeptics become believers when the consumer says “make it so,” and this has never been more true today as European automakers try to match Toyota’s success with gas-electric hybrid vehicles.
Toyota’s Prius is the runaway leader in hybrd automobile sales by giving the mobile public another option to combat high gas prices.
In 2004 Toyota sold 53,761 Prius cars in the U.S. and so far in 2005 Prius sales are up 133 percent through the end of August.
In response, European automakers are doing the following:
- Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche are forming an alliance to develop hybrid engines
- BMW joined GM and Daimler-Chrysler in a similar venture
- Peugot-Citroen is looking for a partner too
- Audi unveiled the first European hybrid at the Frankfurt auto show in September 2005 - a Q7 Hybrid for sale in 2008
- Daimler-Chrysler will offer its first hybrid Mercedes in 2007
Lots of activity is being generated because of consumer demand for gas-electric hybrids.
Stay tuned for many more exiciting announcements and new automobile offerings due to the Prius success to date.
Clean Air Update 5 (June 2005)
I wrote to California Senator Dianne Feinstein to support the “oil security” floor amendment to the Senate Energy Bill, S.10, which supports several near-term petroleum reduction technologies not in the current bill. I highlighted my support for ammendment S.10’s plug-in hybrid elelctric vehicle provisions. The technology is available today for plug-in hybrids to get over 100 miles per gallon, thus offering very large additional petroleum reductions. This cleaner technology solution will help America reduce its current 97 percent dependence on oil for transportation fuel as well as stop the drag on the economy due to the flow of wealth to oil-producing countries. Further, I noted that cleaner technology innovation creates higher wage, high technology jobs America needs. I expect the Senator to support this sensible Oil Security ammendment.Clean Air Update 4 (June 2005)
The secret to increasing fuel economy in gas-electric hybrids is to manipulate the relationship between the two halves of the engine. The more electric propulsion is used the better the mileage. To improve this even more, the company CalCars modifies new Priuses to run harder and longer on the electric engine by increasing battery storage, updating engine software, and enabling drivers to recharge by way of an extension cord, rather than just buying more gas - thereby achieving up to 100 miles per gallon. Toyota, of course, does not recommend such modifications.Clean Air Update 3 (May 2005)
How would you feel if you were suddenly paid less than fellow workers because you are more efficient and get the job done quicker? Penalized, targeted, and unfair are some of the words that come to mind I suspect....well, an analogous scenario is being played out by the Federal taxing agencies. The government is now considering a proposal to tax automobile owners based on miles driven and not on gasoline purchased. In other words, the per gallon gas tax could be replaced by a per mile driven tax. As I understand it, it is unfair for gas-electric hybrid owners to pay less in taxes for gas because they still contribute to wear and tear on the same roads as the gas-guzzling, multi-ton SUVs. Of course, technology that invades a driver’s privacy rights is needed, in the form of a ‘smart’ odometer linked with a global positioning system, to dynamically tax miles driven. As a hybrid owner it makes you feel that by doing the right thing in reducing CO2 emissions and using less gas to reduce foreign dependence on fossil fuels is not being rewarded.  | An 83 mile,one way trip to San Francisco Airport from Santa Rosa yielded a 57.6 mpg reading. The cost for this trip was only 1.5 gallons of gas - roughly $3.60 by May 14, 2005 Northern Californian regular unleaded gas prices. |
|---|
It is a nice perk to pay less for gas and hence pay less gas tax for every mile driven. But oh no, the Feds need to ensure they do NOT see a reduction in tax revenue due to consumers finding fuel efficiency and saving their hard earned dollars by using gas-electric hybrids.
The Feds may begin taxing drivers on distance driven in less than two years. Of course, we’re told this is NOT a tax, but a User Fee - “The Road User Fee.” Again the government is out of touch. Maybe they should consider a tax per pound of vehicle since three tons of SUV cause far more road “pounding” than a hybrid vehicle weighing less than half that. This targetting of the gas-electric hybrid cars could also be the Feds bowing to the Big Three automakers lobbying efforts to discourage conservation and maintain their market share through tax policies instead of competing with products that consumers want. Either way, this change in tax policy is blatantly unfair.
Clean Air Update 2 (April 2005)
As promised in the January 2005 Newsletter, here is the second update on clean air initiatives. The topic of governments pushing for tough emissions pacts with carmakers was reviewed in the November 2004 Newsletter.
In a major breakthrough for environmentalists pushing for emission reductions and governments trying to meet the Kyoto protocol*, carmakers agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions of vehicles sold in Canada. The pact reached in April 2005 means automobile manufacturers will reduce global warming emissions by 5.3 million metric tons by the end of 2010 - a 25 percent reduction in Canada. This agreement also paves the way for California State goals of 30 percent emission reductions to be met between 2009 and 2016, targets that these same automakers were fighting in the courts.
It is interesting to note that the automobile manufacturers will voluntarily adopt stringent standards in Canada, yet fight against them in the United States. It appears technology advances, implemented by companies like Toyota, Honda, and Ford, show that lowering vehicle emissions is doable.
 | The Toyota Prius shown here typically achieves 50 mpg. It is also a Super-Ultra Low-Emission Vehicle (SULEV) built from the ground-up as a gas-electric automobile to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. |
|---|
| This is an image of Toyota Prius's Energy Monitor Display. It iis a great tool that conditions the driver NOT to drive 'too aggressively' with the heavy foot, rapid accelerations, and/or rapid 'stop and go' driving. The display shows how much gas is wasted when driving in this aggressive manner. The Energy Monitors (the other display shows MPG performance and KWH saved) are like your conscious telling you to drive steadily. The Prius gas engine part of the gas-electric hybrid is OFF when reversing, when driving slow (or stopped of course), or when crusing at highway speeds. Instead the electric motor powers the vehicle. This allows the owner to get 50 mpg (80 km/g) while cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. This picture specifically shows the gas engine finding time to charge the battery. The battery is also charged when the vehicle slows down (coasting) or as the brakes are applied. This eliminates the need to ever plug-in the car to recharge the batteries. |  |
|---|
Clean Air Update 1 (February 2005)
As promised in the January 2005 Newsletter, here is the first update on cleaner air initiatives at a state level:
In December 2004, lawsuits were filed by automakers against California’s Air Resources Board and its tougher greenhouse-gas emissions law. The car manufacturers will lose this battle, just as they did in their fight against including airbags in passenger vehicles. The regulation mandates a thirty percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks sold by 2016. While the state seeks to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, the auto industry alliance’s Fred Webber argued that global warming is “a big if.” This is an incredible denial of scientific fact. Automakers are also misinterpreting the greenhouse-gas law as an attempt to dictate fuel economy. Rather, the law is about air pollution. Why can’t the latest technology - better engines, better transmissions, and better components - be used to reduce vehicle pollutants. As an engineer, it would seem to make more sense hiring engineers to build superior, cleaner vehicles for global competitiveness, instead of more lawyers to file legal briefs. Lawyers don’t solve problems in cases like this, they delay solutions. Meanwhile, automakers look ridiculous, lose the public goodwill, and devalue their financial strength. Maybe its time to engineer more sustainable transportation solutions.
While the lawyers prepared for battle in court, the engineers at GM and DaimlerChrysler were forced into action by their nervous executive teams in December 2004. GM and DaimlerChrysler announed they are teaming up to share the expense of developing gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles. They have a lot of ground to make up in order to catch Toyota, which has sold over 120,000 Prius hybrids, Honda, and Ford. To date, Daimler has bet on diesel engines for better fuel economy even though diesel engines contribute greater air pollution than gasoline ones. No wonder Daimler is part of the lawsuit in California to stop regulation for cleaner air. On the other hand, GM wants to leapfrog straight to cleaner hydrogen fuel cells. On the surface of it, this sounds great, but it will take years to deliver. The problem here is that incremental improvements for cleaner air and better fuel economy are not realized. Until this partnership with Daimler was announced, GM was not part of the solution. This attitude of all talk and no action may explain why GM is part of the California lawsuit too.
A month later, in January 2005, GM introduced its latest hydrogen car prototype, the Sequel. This unveiling is in keeping with GM’s attitude of talking a great game but not delivering incremental solutions that are environmentally friendly. In fact, GM played the lead obstructionist role when the federal government proposed a seven percent improvement in SUV fuel economy in 2002. GM filed a 330-page objection to the federal proposal claiming it would hurt the company. No other automaker came anywhere close to this level of resistance. It appears GM has to control the agenda and the timing of events in the automobile universe. However, GM will lose again if it denies customers their right to set the agenda for environmentally-friendly transportation.
Feature: Saving Money at the Pump
This section outlines ideas you can use to save money at the pump. Think about it!
This months gas-saving tip:
"CHANGE YOUR COMMUTE!"
Sitting in traffic means you are going nowhere and burning gas to do so, unless, of course, you happen to own a gas-electric hybrid - when stopped or moving at less than 15 mph the gas engine is off. To avoid idling consider shifting your work schedule to avoid rush hours, try to combine errands to take advantage of a warm engine (which burns less fuel than one that is cold), and see if you can work in telecommuting for as many days of the month as possible to conserve gas.
Last months gas-saving tip:
"CAR FITNESS!"
A well-tuned car uses less gasoline. Make sure your oil and oil filters are regularly changed. Routine maintenance can improve gas mileage by as much as four percent. Note that cheap motor oil cuts gas mileage, so stick with your car manufacturers preferred grade.
Previous gas-saving tips:
"DRIVE SMART!"
Gas is wasted and you also put others at risk when you drive aggressively. Stick to the speed limit, avoid rapid acceleration and frequent braking, and try to maintain a constant speed on the road.
It works! Converting to a paper foot has actually given your 'A World Perspective' newsletter staff an extra day of driving for each new tank of gas.
bravenet.com