Archive for the ‘Washington Solar and Wind Power’ Category
Fox Business News
Last week, we introduced you to the Resource Matrix, which is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. We showed you how economics leads to people maximizing their benefits in “win-lose” propositions: you want diamonds and gold for nothing and they want to give you useless junk for a king’s ransom. And how we’ve been hypnotized in believing what they want is also what we want. But the scales have been falling from our eyes, we’re beginning to see the truth, and the power has been shifting away from the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd: We now realize we’re all in this together: we have greater awareness of our actions and the desire to change, and have ways to change. Hallelujah and Praise the Collective! Today, we introduce the resource called water, its parallels with fossil fuels, and its role in global warming. None of this is to dismiss or diminish the contribution of fossil fuels in global warming. Hey, just like the Special Olympics, if you participate, you get a medal. We just think that gold-medal winner Fossil Fuels has stolen the spotlight, letting silver-medalist Water Use keep us hypnotized in believing that water is a free lunch, and that nature will clear up polluted waters while getting away with breaking the rules. Water, water, everywhere, According to our friends at How Stuff Works, who I wrote about sarcastically for their oxymoronic clean coal article in discussing how true public relations stuff really works, gives us this data: Okay, so 20% of the usable water (only 0.4% of all water on Earth) is accessible, right? Well . . . no. Many of the aquifers, wells, lakes, and rivers have been sucked dry like a once-juicy fly carcass in a spider’s web. (The 18% and 1.8% you see above is like the money in the Social Security Fund: there actually is nothing there.) And many of those water sources that do still have a drop to drink are worse than the ocean’s salt water. Drink salt water and you’ll need to yawn into a bucket. Drink this water and you’ll kick the bucket. And I know you aren’t asking this burning question:
“So . . . global warming to release fresh water from ice caps and glaciers is a good thing, no?”
Percentage this, percentage that. I know I’m pulling the disgusting old government trick: drowning you in an ocean of water statistics. So let’s make it plain and simple: You bring in $10,000 a month. You’re also living high on the hog and doing your personal best to outshine every bling-bling Hip Hopster Musical Artist in materially conspicuous consumption: Aquifers and wells and lakes and rivers: Fred Pearce, author of When the Rivers Run Dry, helps us quickly understand it:
We can all save water in the home. But as laudable as it is to take a shower rather than a bath and turn off the faucet while brushing our teeth, we shouldn’t get hold of the idea that regular domestic water use is what is really emptying the world’s rivers. Manufacturing goods … consumes a certain amount, but that’s not the real story either. It is only when we add in the water needed to grow what we eat and drink that the numbers really begin to soar. (emphasis mine.) (Fred Pearce, When the Rivers Run Dry, Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. p 3)
Here are a few numbers he gives: He kindly puts water use into perspective in annual terms: —————————————– sidebar: US Beef industry’s Cattlemen’s Association: 441 gallons In an industrial beef production system, it takes an average three years before the animal is slaughtered to produce about 200 kg of boneless beef. The animal consumes nearly 1300 kg of grains (wheat, oats, barley, corn, dry peas, soybean meal and other small grains), 7200 kg of roughages (pasture, dry hay, silage and other roughages), 24 cubic meter of water for drinking and 7 cubic meter of water for servicing. This means that to produce one kilogram of boneless beef, we use about 6.5 kg of grain, 36 kg of roughages, and 155 litres of water (only for drinking and servicing). Producing the volume of feed requires about 15300 litres of water on average. —————————————– Where does all that water come from? If it comes from imported goods (Thai rice or Egyptian cotton), the water comes from those countries. When the water is collected from rivers or pumped from underground, as it is in much of the world, it’s: And when the rivers are running low, as they are more frequently, there is less water to grow anything at all. The water used in growing and producing goods around the world is known as “virtual water” and the trade of these goods is known as “virtual water transfers.” And who’s the biggest water exporting Mouseketeer of them all? The United States. When you drink coffee from Central America, you are influencing the hydrology of the region, virtually taking a share of the Costa Rican rains. The same is true within a national and regional boundaries. The Colorado River is drained so Californians can eat their Big Macs and have friends over for a Sunday afternoon barbecue. In the same way that your use of fossil fuel is measured as a “carbon footprint,” your water use, actual and through virtual water transfer, is measured as a “water footprint.” How big is my water footprint? Arjen Y. Hoekstra, professor at the University of Twente, the Netherlands, introduced the water-footprint concept in 2002. It “shows water use related to consumption within a nation, while the traditional indicator shows water use in relation to production within a nation.” (Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008, p. 3) With Hoekstra and Chapagain’s water footprint calculator (waterfootprint.org), you select your country, input food, domestic water use, and industrial goods consumption, press a button, and you get your: For example, you’re in the US, eat only 1 pound of cereal a week (.4545 kg) and have a low-fat, low-sugar diet, use a low-flow showerhead, use a no-flush eco-toilet, and never run the tap while brushing your teeth. Two extremes: Three notes on the calculations, because Professor Hoekstra is European and lives in the social welfare country that started birthing hippies in Amsterdam decades before they showed up in the US at Woodstock: So how is Cinnamon’s capitalist water footprint? Answer: 650 cubic meters (172,900 gallons) I showed you mine. Now you show me yours: Get the naked truth: Calculate your waterfootprint now: Water’s running out: We return to Fred Pearce’s book to find an example, of which he has oceans: China’s Yellow River: The fifth longest in the world, it begins high in the mountains of eastern Tibet and journeys more than 3000 miles. Almost half a billion people depend on it for drinking and crop irrigation, and it’s made China the world’s largest wheat producer and second largest corn producer. Yet more than half of the lakes it feeds have disappeared over the last 20 years, and a third of pastures have turned to desert. This desertification generates huge dust storms that choke lungs in Beijing, close schools in Koreas, dust cars in Japan, and rain dust on mountains across the Pacific and Western Canada. State irrigation projects along the Yellow River soak up the majority of its water – the total official allocations are greater than the actual flow. The resulting drought could be an early warning sign of global warming. Much of the declines in moisture reaching rivers is in line with prediction of climate researchers. So how does this global warming happen? Higher air temperatures from desertification increase evaporation from oceans and intensify the water cycle. This increases atmospheric water vapor – 8 to 10% more than today. This increases global rainfall, but the rain is being redistributed: middle latitudes (read: the US) are becoming drier. Higher temperatures increase evaporation on land, meaning soil dries out faster, meaning less rainfall is reaching rivers. The higher temperatures melt glaciers and snowpacks. At first, this leads to unpredecented floods. After the glaciers disappear, meltwaters that feed rivers disappear. The combined decreasing rainfall and increasing evaporation will lower moisture by 40% in the southern and western states. The Sierra Nevada snowpack could diminish by 70 to 80 percent over the next 50 years. And some of the world’s most productive agricultural regions could dry up. Global climate is becoming more extreme: the dry areas become drier, and the wet areas become wetter. And more areas are becoming dry deserts. Loss of habitat and agricultural lands. It’s a vicious cycle. So what can you do? As Fred Pearce points out, your drinking and bathing account for 0.05% of your total water consumption. Your food and clothing weigh in at 95.00%, although I find his 12,000 gallons needed to produce a pound of burger rather wild. As Professor Arjen Y. Joekstra shows with his Water Footprint Calculator, your consumption of meats accounts for a lot, as does your guilt by association of being in an industrialized country. The obvious solution: eat fewer e-coli burgers from your neighborhood Salt and Fat Slop Bucket restaurant. The wiser solution: like your choices in energy use, become more aware of the resources needed to produce anything and the consequences. Such as luxurious cotton grown in the Egyptian desert. Next article in the water efficiency series: We continue going with the flow of water, when we show the parallel between the current hot Oil Wars and in the future cold Water Wars. And all of this is for one purpose: To help you see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you. Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . . To your green, brighter future, Cinnamon Alvarez, And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today. You can access it now by going to: http://www.a19.com/pub/articles/ From Cinnamon Alvarez: Founder, A19 — woman-owned green manufacturer of hand-made ceramic lighting fixtures
Fox Business News
Water Efficiency – The Resource Matrix Part 2 of 4 – Water’s Role in Global Warming
not a drop to drink.
Talk my language, will you?
Dry or polluted, oh my!
How Many Gallons to Produce One Pound of Beef?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Fred Pearce: 12,000 gallons
Water Footprint Network: 1854 gallons (calculations: 15500 litres of water per kg; 4079 gallons per kg; 1854 gallons per pound)
From virtually everywhere
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours
I get the fossil fuel analogy so far.
And what about climate change?
Navigating through the Resource Matrix
How an illiterate, lice-infested, foul-mouthed
peasant on some other side of the globe affects you
A19
Is it Green? – to Buying Eco-Friendly Products: A Shopper’s Guide
Is it Green? – to Buying Eco-Friendly Products: A Shopper’s Guide
Even with the economy cooling, “Green” products remain — well — if not hot, still very warm.
In a report released in February ‘09, market research firm Mintel predicts 19% growth for eco-friendly products through 2013, even though the current economic downturn is expected to negatively impact sales through this year.
But “Green” can mean a lot of different things to different people. And that produces some understandable confusion for consumers as to what is truly “Green” and what is instead “Greenwashed”.
[Greenwashing is when companies over-hype the positive environmental impact of their products or policies. Tsk-tsk.]
Each and every day we review green deals and giveaways before posting them online to ensure the products being promoted are indeed eco-friendly. Some are easy to assess, like a sweepstakes for a Prius. But many times, the green aspect of a product is not as clear-cut as it is for a hybrid car.
To help us determine what’s green and what’s not, we looked to criteria established by trusted non-profits, such as Green America, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Consumer Reports, and compiled the following rules-of-thumb:
1) Above all, use common sense. Ask yourself …
- Is the product friendly to the planet?
- Does it help save energy on the road and at home; conserve water; support organic and sustainable farming?
- Is it nontoxic, recycled, cruelty-free and/or fair-trade?
2) Look for Certifications/Associations
Is the product certified or does the manufacturer have a membership association? Here is just a small sample of the many, many green certifications and associations out there. Consumer Reports “Greener Choices” website has a terrific Eco-label section which can help you sift through the meaning and relative significance of various labels.
- Household Products — Green Seal; Certified Biodegradable
- Cosmetics — Leaping Bunny; Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Signatory
- Food — Organic Certification; Marine Stewardship Council; Certified Humane Raised and Handled
- Wood — Forest Stewardship Council
- Green Business Practices — Green America Approved
3) Read the Ingredient List
If a company or product doesn’t have certification/membership affiliations, is there some way for consumers to evaluate their green claim? For example, products that claim to be natural should include a complete ingredient list.
4) Is the Product Fair Trade Certified?
Fair trade certification ensures not only that the producer of a good is paid a fair price but also that social and environmental standards are met during production of that good. Many companies may claim their products are fair trade, but you should double check to see whether the product has actual certification from a fair trade labeling organization. In the U.S., that organization is TransFair USA (though at this time, they only certify agricultural products, like coffee and tea.)
5) Is the Product Vegan or Vegetarian?
According to a report by U.N. climate experts, animal production is responsible for 18 per cent of all greenhouse emissions, most of it emitted in the form of methane from belching cattle. Yes, that’s right — gassy cows. So shifting your purchases to vegetarian or vegan products — not only food, but items such as shoes and beauty products — can mean fewer burping Bessies and less harm to the environment.
Shoppers looking to go green are welcome to use these rules of thumb as a starting point when trying to evaluate the “greenness” of product. But in order to become true green consumers, there is no substitute for first-hand knowledge. We highly encourage shoppers to become as educated as possible on what is and isn’t considered green these days, and how they can evaluate green claims. Be forewarned — trying to decipher what’s green is not a perfect science, but the non-profits mentioned above are excellent places to start your coursework. Good luck!
Report Links:
Mintel Finds Fewer Americans Interested in Going “Green” During Recession (Feb 09)
Livestock a major threat to environment (Nov 06)
Ecobunga! (http://www.ecobunga.com) lists hundreds of deals and giveaways for eco-friendly products — everything from coupons on organic foods to sweepstakes for hybrid cars. They review every promotion before publishing it online to ensure that is indeed a bonafide green deal. Ecobunga! is pleased to have recently received the Green America Seal of Approval for socially and environmentally responsible businesses.
5 Steps to Living a Greener Life
5 Steps to Living a Greener Life
Lots of people talk about trying to live a greener life, with some even going so far as to completely change their lifestyle, but most people aren’t sure how to go green because they don’t know exactly what that means. Sure, most people know the basics that scratch the surface such as reusing, recycling and reducing the amount of waste output for their homes but there many other steps you can take to move towards a cleaner, greener environment.
If you’re wondering how you can make your life greener, here are five different tips that are simple and easy to implement and that don’t cost the you anything. All it takes is a little dedication and after a few months, these five little things will become second-nature to you.
1. The next time you go shopping use cloth bags at the grocery store instead of paper or plastic. These cloth bags can be purchased for as little as a few dollars each and they’re much stronger than paper or plastic bags and will last you through years of use.
These bags help reduce waste since most people throw away the plastic and paper bags. The hardest part of using cloth bags is remembering to take them to the store, but once you get in the habit of using them, it becomes unconscious habit.
2. Replace your standard light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. These bulbs use less energy and last for four to five years, almost 15 times longer than traditional bulbs. While the cost of a compact fluorescent bulb is more than your standard bulb, they easily pay for themselves over time requiring less frequent replacement and reduced energy consumption. In fact, studies show that a CF bulb can actually pay for itself within one to two months. One CF bulb also saves about five pounds of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide a month. Replacing every bulb in your home can have a huge impact on the environment and on your wallet.
3. Use public transportation. By car pooling, taking the bus, or using the subway you can cut down on the amount of gas you use and the amount of exhaust your car emits. While it may be an inconvenience in some ways, it is one of the best ways of helping the environment. Even better, walk or ride your bike to work if possible. This not only saves you money and helps the environment but it also keeps you fit and healthy!
4. Adjust your thermostat by a few degrees. By turning your thermostat down by just two degrees in the winter, you can save over 50 pounds of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide per month while lowering your heating bill. Turning it up a few degrees in the summer can likewise save you money and save the environment.
5. Finally, only wash your clothes or run your dish washer when you have a full load. It wastes water and electricity to wash and dry only a few pieces of clothing. In fact, if you can, try to wash your clothes using the cold water cycle as it uses up to 50% less energy than a warm water one.
By just doing these basics not only you can save some serious money but you can rest assured that you’re doing your part for a cleaner, brighter future. To discover more ideas you can use around your home for living green visit http://www.greentipsforyou.com!
2008- Granny Arrested/Greenest car
The New 3 R’s
The New 3 R’s
I was back in the grocery store this Saturday, but it was not the prices (although I did manage to keep it under ninety pounds once again) that caught my eye or even what other people were buying. In fact, what I noticed this Saturday did not happen until I was home and unpacking my weekly shopping. What I noticed was the amount of packaging, most of it useless, that I put into the bin. Of course, we have been using our green bags for over a year now so we are not throwing very many plastic ones away. Well, in fact we don’t really throw any away, because we try to follow the adage…Reduce, re-use, re-cycle. I want to look at how the 3 R’s of reduce, re-use, recycle fits into all of the Frugal Fam core values.
Family first. Since we are our children’s first and best teachers, I think that the time we invest in teaching them about all things environmental is an excellent investment in our futures and theirs. Isn’t it ironic that reduce, re-use, recycle could become the new 3 R’s. In fact so I don’t wear out my fingers re-typing it all over and over again, let’s us that term in the rest of the article to refer to reduce, re-use, recycle. It is never too early to begin either. At three, my daughter knows the difference between the bin and the recycle bag (sometimes better than my eighteen year old).
Saving money. In fact, in the UK most councils offer free recycling facilities to all residents, which means that recycling costs us nothing. There are examples too of how recycling can actually save you money though, such as my wormary, which produces organic liquid fertiliser and compost or reducing your energy consumption by turning down the thermostat. And as I have shown in past post about Freecycle, charity shops and similar services, you can save a great deal of money by re-using items that someone else may no long need.
But in the USA recycling too can actually pay money. Although not as easy for many American families to place bags or special bins on the stoop (although some forward thinking counties and cities are offering curb-side recycling as in the UK), the profit from this activity can be used to fund extras or meet essential obligations. Before I left Los Angeles in 2006, there were increasingly mini-recycling centres often in the parking lots of grocery stores. Families could take their paper, metal and plastic products and turn them into paper…paper money that is. In some ways this is more incentive to recycle than the UK system. What if your family could pay for its holiday through recycling? Perhaps even clean up your street? I know that my three years old loves helping me to pick up trash in her park. Could your family do something similar?
Environmentally friendly. Like I said, the 3 R’s are among the basics of environmentally friendly. It is one of the easiest things that we can all do to save this special planet for our children and grand-children. Alright, we have all heard the pundits talk about how recycling does not make a difference. So to clear up a few of those myths:
- Enough energy is saved by recycling one aluminium can to run a TV set for three hours.
- A steel mill which uses recycled scrap reduces related water pollution, air pollution, and mining wastes by at least 70 percent.
- Creating one ton of recycled paper uses only about 60 percent of the energy needed to make a ton of virgin paper.
- Seventeen trees are saved for each ton of recycled newspaper.
- Recycling steel and tin cans saves 74 percent of the energy necessary to produce them.
- Today most bottles and jars contain at least 25 percent recycled glass.
Healthy living. It may not be immediately obvious how the 3 R’s can make you healthier, but I have a couple of examples:
- Reduce your carbon footprint by walking to school, the store and anywhere else you can…also increases the amount of exercise you are getting. Walking is actually one of the best exercises there is.
- Eating fresher often means that there is less packaging as frozen, tinned and jarred products, which produce more waste also, are likely to have more added salts, sugars and preservatives.
- Reducing the carbon miles of your food by growing your own fruits and vegetables also allows you to grow them organically as well as having the benefit of reducing your stress through the pleasurable hobby of gardening.
Now that we have talked about how the 3R’s of reduce, re-use and recycle keep with the Frugal Fam core values, I hope that each of you will join me in this journey and share your ideas for Reduce, Re-use, Recycle.
Terri O’Neale is the mother of six; ranging in age from 3 to 22. She has been both a working and stay-at-home mother at various times in her life. She was also a single mother for almost five years, before re-marrying the love of her life at the age of forty. Obviously, she has a life-time of training in raising a family on a tight budget. In addition to these real life experiences, she possesses a bachelors degree in health education and a minored in environmental management in her masters programme.
Terri feels strongly that this is one of the most challenging times in history for the family, but she also believes that families with the will and resolve to address the pressing issues of saving money, becoming greener, leading healthier lifestyles and spending more time with one another can endure these challenging times and come out victorious in the end.
Through Frugal Family articles, blogs, videos and social networking, she helps modern families rediscover some lost art forms such as cooking, sewing, and gardening. The goal is not to go back in time or become fanatical, but to help all families find simple and effective ways that fit into their lifestyle to make moderate changes with huge impacts. For more information, check out her blog http://frugalfam.wordpress.com/.
Global Warming – Are We to Blame?
Global Warming – Are We to Blame?
Global warming is one of those topics that I still find myself wondering what to truly believe. Is our CO2 production really the culprit in the warming of the planet? Or are there some other larger influences at play here. I have a hard time believing mankind’s activities are solely to blame for any kind of climate change.
After all, CO2 is only one of many greenhouse gases that can affect the warming trend. Water vapor is by far the most abundant and effective at influencing the greenhouse problem. But I don’t see any kind of public concern over evaporation of water in any way at all. Okay, I realize that there is little or even nothing that can be done about that but the point is CO2 is just a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases affecting our climate. So if water vapor is by far the largest greenhouse gas then why are we so obsessed by manmade CO2? Mankind’s ego.
We see a small trend in the planets temperature rising and of course we assume it must be what we are doing. I am truly pleased to see that we are taking an interest in reducing pollution from cars and industry but I really have my doubts about the connection to global warming at least in the significant way the media would like us to believe.
The media is sounding the alarm bell which of course sells more newspapers than reporting the less extreme predictions surrounding the warming trend. The weather models produced by scientists predict a reduction in the temperature differences between the poles and the equatorial regions. This will in fact reduce the number of violent tropical storms, as there will be less of a temperature discrepancy to stimulate them. Also the warming of the regions closer to the poles will allow agricultural pursuits in areas where it was not possible before. Food production would be able to rise accordingly. The alarmist media isn’t interested in those types of stories it seems.
The change in the world’s temperature is just that, change. There is irrefutable evidence that the temperature of the planet has and most likely will always be changing regardless of what we are doing. What are we so afraid of? Do the alarmists doubt mankind’s ability to adapt and cope with a few degrees of temperature change or even sea levels rising a meter or so? There will doubtless be hardships and even some displaced people in some regions but man has the ability to adapt and change. We have demonstrated this through the ages. I am confident that we will not only survive these changes but also learn to use them to our advantage.
I live in Canada and if you ask anyone living north of the temperate zone about rising temperatures the resounding response would be “bring it on, we could use a little global warming around here”. Life will improve greatly for huge numbers of the world’s population with a couple of degrees increase in the planet’s temperature. Migration to areas that were before considered uninhabitable by most will have a more moderate climate allowing for farming and other activities. You can’t sell newspapers with stories like that.
The scientific data indicates that 1998 was the warmest year on record. The planet has been cooling ever since. A quote from Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences “The earth is at the peak of one of its passing warm spells, It’ll start getting cold by 2012, and really, really cold around 2041″. So who are we to believe? A respected scientist or Al Gore who has made millions from his crusade for the planet and his questionable agenda and phony pseudo science.
If the planet is warming I can honestly say I hope so. We will get by and probably do well in the process. What really concerns me is the muzzling of real science in the debate. An objective media would go a long way in helping us all deal with the facts as they truly are. Focusing on the alarmist perspective only causes undue fear where none is warranted.
Is driving our SUV’s and minivans really the problem here? Or is our planet just going through another climate cycle like it has done so many times before? The only thing I know for sure is I can’t count on the media to provide the answers.
I recently produced the feature film The Harvest Project. Find out more and view the trailer at http://www.theharvestprojectmovie.com The movie is also available for sale at http://www.filmannex.com/search/searchkey/harvest%20project You can contact me at doug_king@shaw.ca
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Doug_G_King
american idol – green brain
Even with the economy cooling, “Green” products remain — well — if not hot, still very warm. In a report released in February ‘09, market research firm Mintel predicts 19% growth for eco-friendly products through 2013, even though the current economic downturn is expected to negatively impact sales through this year. But “Green” can mean a lot of different things to different people. And that produces some understandable confusion for consumers as to what is truly “Green” and what is instead “Greenwashed”. [Greenwashing is when companies over-hype the positive environmental impact of their products or policies. Tsk-tsk.] Each and every day we review green deals and giveaways before posting them online to ensure the products being promoted are indeed eco-friendly. Some are easy to assess, like a sweepstakes for a Prius. But many times, the green aspect of a product is not as clear-cut as it is for a hybrid car. To help us determine what’s green and what’s not, we looked to criteria established by trusted non-profits, such as Green America, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Consumer Reports, and compiled the following rules-of-thumb: 1) Above all, use common sense. Ask yourself … 2) Look for Certifications/Associations Is the product certified or does the manufacturer have a membership association? Here is just a small sample of the many, many green certifications and associations out there. Consumer Reports “Greener Choices” website has a terrific Eco-label section which can help you sift through the meaning and relative significance of various labels. 3) Read the Ingredient List If a company or product doesn’t have certification/membership affiliations, is there some way for consumers to evaluate their green claim? For example, products that claim to be natural should include a complete ingredient list. 4) Is the Product Fair Trade Certified? Fair trade certification ensures not only that the producer of a good is paid a fair price but also that social and environmental standards are met during production of that good. Many companies may claim their products are fair trade, but you should double check to see whether the product has actual certification from a fair trade labeling organization. In the U.S., that organization is TransFair USA (though at this time, they only certify agricultural products, like coffee and tea.) 5) Is the Product Vegan or Vegetarian? According to a report by U.N. climate experts, animal production is responsible for 18 per cent of all greenhouse emissions, most of it emitted in the form of methane from belching cattle. Yes, that’s right — gassy cows. So shifting your purchases to vegetarian or vegan products — not only food, but items such as shoes and beauty products — can mean fewer burping Bessies and less harm to the environment. Shoppers looking to go green are welcome to use these rules of thumb as a starting point when trying to evaluate the “greenness” of product. But in order to become true green consumers, there is no substitute for first-hand knowledge. We highly encourage shoppers to become as educated as possible on what is and isn’t considered green these days, and how they can evaluate green claims. Be forewarned — trying to decipher what’s green is not a perfect science, but the non-profits mentioned above are excellent places to start your coursework. Good luck! Report Links: Mintel Finds Fewer Americans Interested in Going “Green” During Recession (Feb 09) Ecobunga! (http://www.ecobunga.com) lists hundreds of deals and giveaways for eco-friendly products — everything from coupons on organic foods to sweepstakes for hybrid cars. They review every promotion before publishing it online to ensure that is indeed a bonafide green deal. Ecobunga! is pleased to have recently received the Green America Seal of Approval for socially and environmentally responsible businesses.
american idol - green brain
Is it Green? – A Shopper’s Guide to Buying Eco-Friendly Products
Livestock a major threat to environment (Nov 06)
Yahoo Vs Google – Who’s Greener?
Yahoo Vs Google – Who’s Greener?
Silicon Valley is known for both innovation and hype. Recently, this pool of innovation has extended beyond bandwidth to the protection the environment. Google and Yahoo, the search engine giants, are both headquartered in the Valley and have been making headlines by greening their offices, reducing energy consumption, and carbon trading. The PR motivations are obvious, but are the green benefits really there? To set apart the hype from reality, we have analyzed the green value of both Google and Yahoo’s headquarter facilities.
We looked at the ecological services provided by green landscape features such as trees and open space (i.e. grass). Grass and trees are pervious surfaces, meaning they allow water to permeate into the ground. Roofs, sidewalks, patios, and asphalt parking lots are examples of impervious surfaces, where rainwater drains into the public storm drains. Heavy metals, oil, and other pollutants are carried off parking lots in rainwater, which often lead directly to open water habitats, where fish, birds, and reptiles live.
In terms of ecological services, trees and grass have been proven to:
1. Remove and store carbon from the atmosphere,
2. Remove certain airborne pollutants,
3. Permits rainwater to seep into the ground as opposed to draining into the stormdrains, and
4. Remove certain waterborne pollutants.
Here is a look at how green Google and Yahoo really are and how the measure up against each other.
Google Green Report
Google’s headquarters, the Googleplex, covers 44 acres, nearly 50% of which is grass or tree canopy. This is an impressive paved to open space ratio. The grass and trees on the Googleplex remove roughly 2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.04 tons per year per acre. In addition, 530 lbs. of air pollution are removed per year (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter), or 12 lbs. per year per acre. It was assumed that the parking lot of the Googleplex is asphalt, and not a type of porous pavement, so the cost of managing rainfall runoff from the Googleplex is $4,474 per year, or $103 per year per acre. The abundance of grass and tree canopy on the Googleplex go a long way to offset the water quality impacts of the paved surfaces (mainly the parking lot). On average, the grass and trees reduce water pollution by 6%, as opposed to the entire property being paved.
Yahoo Green Report
The Yahoo headquarters, Yahooplex, covers 28 acres, a third of which is grass or tree canopy. This is a classic ratio of paved to open space for large office complexes in California. So far, par for the course. The Yahooplex removes 0.36 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.01 tons per year per acre. 114 lbs. of air pollutants are removed per year, or 4 lbs. per year per acre. In terms of rainfall, the cost associated with runoff is $9,219 per year, or $331 per year per acre. The grass and tree canopy help offset the paved areas with a 2.3% reduction in water pollution as opposed to the entire property being paved.
The final green analysis?
Google kicks Yahoo’s butt, largely due to the forethought, or luxury, of the Googleplex having 50% of its property surface providing green services. The good news for both Google and Yahoo is that over time, as trees grow, so will the tree’s canopy and mass, thus storing more carbon and removing more air pollutants.
Green next steps for both Google and Yahoo is to:
- Install porous parking surfaces, allowing up to 80% of rainwater to seep into the ground,
- Install green roofs, absorbing rainwater while reducing cooling costs and energy consumption, and
- Planting larger trees on the south and west sides of the buildings to reduce cooling costs and energy consumption.
While we crunched the hard numbers to settle the Google vs. Yahoo green debate, this report illuminates the great opportunity that awaits these two Silicon Valley giants to harness the ecological services of green surfaces.
Chris Erichsen is a GIS Mapping consultant with the Erichsen Group, GIS and Mapping in northern California. He has over 10 yrs of GIS experience and helps many industries around the world apply GIS mapping technology. Learn more examples of GIS mapping capabilities.
The Classroom of Mobile Technology
Yahoo Vs Google – Who’s Greener?
Yahoo Vs Google – Who’s Greener?
Silicon Valley is known for both innovation and hype. Recently, this pool of innovation has extended beyond bandwidth to the protection the environment. Google and Yahoo, the search engine giants, are both headquartered in the Valley and have been making headlines by greening their offices, reducing energy consumption, and carbon trading. The PR motivations are obvious, but are the green benefits really there? To set apart the hype from reality, we have analyzed the green value of both Google and Yahoo’s headquarter facilities.
We looked at the ecological services provided by green landscape features such as trees and open space (i.e. grass). Grass and trees are pervious surfaces, meaning they allow water to permeate into the ground. Roofs, sidewalks, patios, and asphalt parking lots are examples of impervious surfaces, where rainwater drains into the public storm drains. Heavy metals, oil, and other pollutants are carried off parking lots in rainwater, which often lead directly to open water habitats, where fish, birds, and reptiles live.
In terms of ecological services, trees and grass have been proven to:
1. Remove and store carbon from the atmosphere,
2. Remove certain airborne pollutants,
3. Permits rainwater to seep into the ground as opposed to draining into the stormdrains, and
4. Remove certain waterborne pollutants.
Here is a look at how green Google and Yahoo really are and how the measure up against each other.
Google Green Report
Google’s headquarters, the Googleplex, covers 44 acres, nearly 50% of which is grass or tree canopy. This is an impressive paved to open space ratio. The grass and trees on the Googleplex remove roughly 2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.04 tons per year per acre. In addition, 530 lbs. of air pollution are removed per year (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter), or 12 lbs. per year per acre. It was assumed that the parking lot of the Googleplex is asphalt, and not a type of porous pavement, so the cost of managing rainfall runoff from the Googleplex is $4,474 per year, or $103 per year per acre. The abundance of grass and tree canopy on the Googleplex go a long way to offset the water quality impacts of the paved surfaces (mainly the parking lot). On average, the grass and trees reduce water pollution by 6%, as opposed to the entire property being paved.
Yahoo Green Report
The Yahoo headquarters, Yahooplex, covers 28 acres, a third of which is grass or tree canopy. This is a classic ratio of paved to open space for large office complexes in California. So far, par for the course. The Yahooplex removes 0.36 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.01 tons per year per acre. 114 lbs. of air pollutants are removed per year, or 4 lbs. per year per acre. In terms of rainfall, the cost associated with runoff is $9,219 per year, or $331 per year per acre. The grass and tree canopy help offset the paved areas with a 2.3% reduction in water pollution as opposed to the entire property being paved.
The final green analysis?
Google kicks Yahoo’s butt, largely due to the forethought, or luxury, of the Googleplex having 50% of its property surface providing green services. The good news for both Google and Yahoo is that over time, as trees grow, so will the tree’s canopy and mass, thus storing more carbon and removing more air pollutants.
Green next steps for both Google and Yahoo is to:
- Install porous parking surfaces, allowing up to 80% of rainwater to seep into the ground,
- Install green roofs, absorbing rainwater while reducing cooling costs and energy consumption, and
- Planting larger trees on the south and west sides of the buildings to reduce cooling costs and energy consumption.
While we crunched the hard numbers to settle the Google vs. Yahoo green debate, this report illuminates the great opportunity that awaits these two Silicon Valley giants to harness the ecological services of green surfaces.
Chris Erichsen is a GIS Mapping consultant with the Erichsen Group, GIS and Mapping in northern California. He has over 10 yrs of GIS experience and helps many industries around the world apply GIS mapping technology. Learn more examples of GIS mapping capabilities.
Plasma Gasification Plant Benefits
Plasma Gasification Plant Benefits
Plasma Gasification Plant (PGP) projects are being developed by at least five gas plasma technology companies, and there are real benefits to be obtained from this technology for the destruction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW).
There is some debate still whether the process has been demonstrated to be a vaible technology which can be reliably operated by our waste management companies at reasonable cost and in compliance with all emissions regulations. However, the consensus seems to be largely in acceptance now that the technology is largely proven and inherently cleaner than incineration.
Although, gasification is used as a power generating technology, and gas plasma plants do provide a power feed-in to the local power grid, it should be realised by all that the purpose of selecting plasma gasification is currently that of achieving maximum waste mass destruction. The intent of the PGP is primarily to provide an efficent and clean method of dispoing of large quantities of residual MSW. Plasma gasification, although it does produce energy from waste is not primarliy an Energy from Waste (EfW) or Waste to Energy technology. There are other better proven, more efficient, and potentially always also cheaper ways to produce Energy from Waste, such as incineration.
PGPs suffer a high sacrificial load from the use of power at the electrodes to generate the plasma, and energy is also expended before the MSW reaches the plasma zone in the gasifier in chopping up and ensuring that the particle size of the waste is quite small. For this reason they do expend a large proportion of the power generated just in maintaining their own internal power demand.
However, as a waste destruction method producing an inert residue without creating at the same time high levels of toxic gaseous emissions the gas plasma process excels according to reports made to date. It has every reason to be cleaner as well because the reactions which take place in the plasma state take place so quickly and completely that the toxic organic chemicals produced in other combustion processes simply don’t get a change to be produced.
For a waste management process PGP therefore holds a very good prospect of adoption, as it is a process which is very efficient at diverting waste away from landfill, and thus scores highly among local authority waste disposal engineers who are constantly seeking to comply with regulations to reduce the amount of organic waste sent to landfill.
The PGP process however, also holds another merit and that is that it is being viewed more favourably by the public than incineration, and one main reason for that would be its clean emissions record when compared with incinerators historically.
Throughout Europe the requirement for BMW to be reduced by ever larger percentages necessitates the use of new technology to achieve this high rate of waste diversion, even after high recycling has also been achieved.
Look out for a plasma gasification plant appearing in a district near you soon, and look favourably upon it!
Steve has built a great web site where there are a lot more facts about gasification. This is a hot subject indeed for this technology which has become an essential read for all those who appreciate renewable energy issues and are interested in taking action to reduce the impact of climate change.Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Steve_D_Evans
GreenTech's News
An Earth Day Lesson
An Earth Day Lesson
Scientists have discovered that forest trees offer unexpected help in the fight against climate change. Tropical rain forests are soaking up more carbon dioxide pollution that anybody realized. Almost one-fifth of our fossil fuel emissions are absorbed by forests across Africa, the Amazon and Asia, suggests Simon Lewis, a climate expert at the University of Leeds, who led a a laborious study of the girth of 70,000 trees across Africa.
David Ritter, senior forest campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said, “This research reveals how these rain forests are providing a huge service to mankind by absorbing carbon dioxide from our factories, power stations and cars. The case for forest protection has never been stronger.”
And yet we continue to cut them down across the world at an alarming rate!
What will happen when we lose natures best carbon filters?
As a nature nut, I feel compelled to address these very questions in this Earth Day lesson, because up until now, truly had not understood the serious impact we humans have had on the very things in nature that can save us from destruction, like rain forests …up until now, that is.
I’m grateful to have joined an incredibly talented and caring circle of people through on-line social networking who have inspired me to learn all about Earth Day, connect with the people involved in it and take action on what I’ve learned by celebrating Earth Day Birthday. This Earth day Lesson is written with the intention to inspire you to do the same.
Having just recently moved to Australia, I was fortunate enough to experience a wild rain forest filled with several waterfalls on a friend’s property. It was an experience that will stay with me forever because we can not feel the power of a special place like this and not intuitively know we have a duty to protect this amazing life form from destruction. The desire to share the spirit which envelops it is intense!
I intuitively knew I must share the experience, as well as my research as to what has been discovered about rain forests and their role in overcoming the challenge of global warming and the extinction of species.
Is “Deforestation” a Dirty Word?
It’s pretty easy to understand why deforestation has gotten a bad rap!
For example…
- Excessive commercial logging and clear cutting. These obvious moneymaking acts are rampant and the greedy business people make the bottom line their priority, regardless of its illegality and obvious wrong-doing.
- What happens to the animals! Trees are home to many species, including indigenous humans, who suddenly become homeless and often, extinct! Not to mention the demise of many plants which are natural wonders, many with healing properties.
- One major effect of deforestation is climate change. Deforestation has been found to contribute to global warming…the process when climates around the world become warmer as more harmful rays of the sun comes in through the atmosphere.
Changes to the earth as a result deforestation work in various ways:
One fact most people don’t realize is the abrupt change in temperatures it causes in the nearby areas. Forests naturally cool because they help keep moisture in the air. Some forget, also, about the water table underneath the ground. The water table is the common source of natural drinking water by people living around forests. Water table could dry up if not replenished regularly. When there’s rain, forests hold the rainfall to the soil through their roots, then the water sinks in deeper to the ground, replenishing the water table.
What do you suppose will happen when there are not enough forests anymore?
Water from rain will simply flow through the soil surface and not be retained by the soil. Or the water from rain will not stay in the soil longer, since the process of evaporation will immediately set in. Not good, right? I think we’d all agree that the need for drinking water is NOT negotiable.
So, if deforestation is so bad…why are we still allowing it?
Even though the word “deforestation” itself conjures up negativity and destruction, people don’t seem to realize that there are actually quite a few benefits of deforestation.
Just imagine what it would be like to live without the use of lumber. Wood is one of the most basic natural resources, and it is renewable simply by growing more trees. The trick is to balance it’s consumption by growing more trees to replace the ones removed. This is not, however, such an easy task.
With thousands of people losing their jobs, just imagine if the wood industry were to suddenly find themselves jobless. There are the people who cut down trees and process them and those who “clean up” after them. As forest is cut down, arable land becomes available for farmers, or used as an area to place urban living sites like apartments, houses, and buildings. If mandates are made for replanting trees, then jobs are also provided for the people performing that service.
With arable land being valuable for growing food, new land area provides a much needed place to grow a food supply to deal with the planet’s steadily expanding population of humanity. Additional living areas can be converted into more than just housing areas. Buildings can house offices for work, or factories to produce essential items, or even research facilities for things like new new medical or technological advances can end up in these deforested areas.
A colleague of mine, originally from Germany, would make a strong argument for forestry as a full time profession that can maintain a never ending supply of wood, as has been done in Europe for thousands of years. “In these forests, nobody clear cuts anywhere and trees are selectively selected while the rest of the forest remains and new tree-seedlings are put where the cut trees were. Europeans would probably argue that there are so many desert areas in the world that could be populated similar to the valley of the sun around Phoenix where no trees have to be sacrificed.”
Great arguments from both sides, so how do we proceed?
Let’s look at the REAL causes of Global Warming for answers
It comes full circle, back to carbon dioxide and the need for nature’s most effective carbon filter…forests.
Just think…Each time we drive a car, each time we use electricity from coal fired power plants, use natural gas or oil to heat our homes, we cause carbon dioxide (CO2) to be released into the atmosphere, as well as other heat trapping gases. The concentration of CO2 has increased by 31 percent since industrialization of our society and atmospheric methane gas has increased by 151 percent, caused mainly from agricultural activities like growing rice and breeding cattle.
As the concentration of these gases increases more heat is generated and trapped in the atmosphere. The increase in trapped heat alters our climate causing changed weather patterns which can bring unusually intense rainfall (precipitation) leading to flooding and severe storms, long dry spells leading to drought conditions and forest fires the like we just witnessed in the Australia Bush fires of 2009.
So what’s the solution?
There is no one best solution. Humans have been clearing forests over thousands of years for a variety of reasons. Obviously, as the statistics suggest above, much of the bad effects we experience today are happening at warp speed, so we really can’t afford to take our time in changing our ways.
Each of us can do something! Individually we can do small things…but together we can make a huge contribution to creating and implementing positive solutions. One has only to get on-line and Google the terms Earth Day or Earth Day Birthday to research, connect, watch, listen, take part and take action along with millions of other caring souls, government entities, non-profit associations and conscientious companies who are not letting any “grass grow under their feet”.
Earth Day, which was founded by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson as an “environmental teach-in” in 1970, is celebrated each year on April 22, mobilizing 200 million people in 141 countries and lifting the status of environmental issues onto the world stage.
Events are happening in every corner of the earth. Attend one!
Mankind needs Mother Earth. Mother Earth needs you to participate! Can you put aside just $10.00 for a gift to give your Mother Earth on her birthday, April 22nd, 2009?
Debbie Ducic, also known as GutZy Woman, gently, supportively and passionately helps “GutZy Women (and Brave men)” overcome their fear and frustration of technology and multimedia marketing in order to be more successful in their businesses, fund raising efforts and lives. Debbie has expanded her reach and her professional resources by becoming an evangelist for socially conscious, eco-minded movements and she can be contacted through her website: http://www.gutzywomen.com . More valuable resources and information from Debbie as well as 49 other GutZy Web Women can be immediately accessed by downloading the “Attraction in Action, Volume 2″ book at her blog: http://www.debbieducic.com
Hybrid SUV