I’m no chemist. In fact, I get a little jittery around (and refuse to make eye contact with) the Periodic Table on my son’s closet door. But, given the subject matter here, I must do my best to understand the basic causes surrounding greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on global warming. At times, the concepts seem simple to me (I “get” the greenhouse metaphor) and other times my eyes tragically glaze over when well-meaning scientists try to explain exactly what’s happening here that’s threatening the lives and future of my children. But mental gymnastics aside (sorry folks, some of it is hardcore science), I just read something that I can get my wee right brain around: the air is sooty and we should clean it up.

“A massive simulation of soot’s climate effects finds that basic pollution controls could put a brake on global warming, erasing in a decade most of the last century’s temperature change,” says a Wired Science post. What they’re getting at is that greenhouse gas emissions aside, which are a huge problem and require long-term solutions (“new energy technology and profound changes in lifestyle”), our habit of pumping good ol’ soot into the atmosphere (wood and dung burning, diesel exhaust, small boilers, residential coal use) is something that 1) is a huge part of the problem of global temperature change, and 2) we should be able to get a handle on for immediate impact using simple tools that already exist, like exhaust filters and clean-burning stoves.

The article is based in part on the work of Stanford University climate scientist Mark Jacobson, who conducted the simulation. He found that soot, or black carbon, plays a critical role in global warming, a fact apparently uncovered by prior studies, as well, including work done by NASA back in 2003. But Jacobson’s work takes the simulation a step further, looking into the immediate effects of decreasing the emissions of said soot. The good news, he reports, is that soot has a lifetime in the atmosphere of just a few weeks, while carbon dioxide, for example, has a lifetime of 30 to 50 years. So getting our black carbon problem under control could have a quick and significant effect on global temperatures.

“If you totally stop CO2 emissions today, the Arctic will still be totally melted,” says Jacobson. If we pull in the reins on soot, “the reductions start to occur pretty much right away. Within months, you’ll start seeing temperature differences.”

Explains the article’s author, Brandon Keim: “Soot comes from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, and also from the burning of wood or dung for fuel. Crop residue and forest-burning are another major source.”

The 2003 NASA simulation said soot was responsible for one quarter of all global warming in the 20th century. And soot has been identified a key contributor to crises ranging from to glacier melts to abnormal monsoon activity. The United Nations, says Keim, “puts the soot-related death toll at 1.5 million people annually.”

If stopped tomorrow, the disappearance of soot would could drop average world temps by about a degree Fahrenheit. “That’s about half the net warming – total global warming, minus cooling from sun-reflecting aerosols – experienced since the beginning of the industrial age,” says Keim. “The effect would be even larger in the Arctic, where sea ice and tundra could rapidly refreeze.”

The big picture impact of a wide-scale soot reduction effort could buy time and delay “tipping points” in climate change as greenhouse gases continue to take their toll. While the last year’s draft climate treaty generated in Copenhagen last year doesn’t say anything “soot-specific,” the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) will be discussing soot problems next year. Meanwhile, here in the States, the EPA will soon begin its own black carbon study. In the meantime, it’s nice to know that there may be some immediate answers out there if we just listen up and put a lid - or a filter - on it.

Image: stoixeia

Put a cork in it! That’s the old school way of bottling wine, one that benefited our environment in a variety of ways. But synthetic corks and screw tops were introduced so that getting to that yummy grape was more convenient, and to prevent the wine from spoiling. Some three percent to 15 percent of all bottles sealed with corks go bad due to a naturally occurring chemical compound called trichloroanisole (TCA).

To save the billion dollar industry, wineries around the globe transitioned to synthetic corks made form plastic and now, user-friendly screw caps.

In 2004, Corbett Canyon, the largest producer of U.S. wines adopted easy-to-use screw seals, mostly to respond to the perception of cork causing tainting. But the synthetics are not limited to cheapo wines. RH Phillips and Whitehall Lane converted, as well as Washington’s Hogue Cellars. And it’s not just the inexpensive ones. Napa’s PlumpJack Winery sealed half of its 2000 Reserve Cab ($100 a bottle) with plastic caps.

The threat to the cork industry pits the European farmer against U.S. corporations like Dow (the maker of Agent Orange, pesticides and PVC plastics) which heads a plastic cork research and development group called Neocork, that is backed by California wine makers and reported investors like Bill Gates.

Why the environment is getting screwed:

The Trees

No trees are cut down to make the cork for stoppers. Instead, bark is stripped every nine years or so with hand-held axes and grows back to fortify a thriving ecosystem. Cork oak trees can yield material for up to 200 years if stripped of bark to maintain their health. The cork oak forests offer considerable shelter to plant and animal species in the Mediterranean, including endangered Barbara deer, the Imperial Iberian eagle and the Iberian lynx. Working the land provides jobs for some 100,000 people in Spain, Algeria, Morocco, Italy, Tunisia, France and Portugal. The regeneration of the trees is also effective in absorbing millions of tons of carbon dioxide, thereby offsetting greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming. The cork industry group APCOR estimates the amount of CO2 emissions soaked up in each summer harvest in Portugal equals the emissions of 185,000 cars.

Emissions and Reuse

Cork has emerged as a popular green material for chic flooring and wall covering, fashion bags, pens and mini boards. It is easy to recycle and re-purpose and inexpensive to produce.  Meantime, synthetic alternatives are difficult to recycle and require much more energy to manufacture. Cork has been widely embraced by green designers and artisans for products that are easy to manufacture and install in our homes. Aluminum screw tops are often tossed out. At one UK site, blog visitors recommended these uses: Cookie cutters for dough, donations to schools for arts and crafts projects, or drill a hole in them for crazy jewelry. In other worlds, the upcycling is slow on the uptake.

Wine preservation versus earth preservation

As Grist so aptly points out, the environmental impact of the plastic screw top has less to do with leaching plastics and dangers to the grape than with “overall manufacturing footprints.” From the health of the trees, to the sustainability of the ecosystem and livelihood of tree farmers, plastic bottle tops are barking up the wrong tree, just as all the plastic conveniences that came before the newest darlings of the beverage industry.

Images: TheBusyBrain, Panda, Atlantawineguy, The Nibble, Corkfloor,

Did you know that global livestock production is responsible for more greenhouse gases than transportation? According to Mark Bittman, eating less meat could have a greater affect on the environment than reducing the mileage we put on our cars!

As the Food Revolution’s grumblings grow louder, more practical guides to eating are becoming available to help us make sense of all the food and health information we’re bombarded with. Food Matters: A Guide to Conscious Eating is one such book, written by Mark Bittman – a food journalist, culinary aficionado, and cookbook writer, who is perhaps best known for his cookbook, How to Cook Everything, first published in 1998.

Focused on making sustainable, lifestyle change, Food Matters includes a practical guide to eating with specific meal plans and simple, daily recipes to follow. Additionally, the book discusses agriculture, food and American eating habits, the environmental impact of our eating culture and a brief history of how we got where we are today.

Written as a personal account and journey about changing his own eating habits, Bittman makes a compelling argument as to why the rest of us should follow his lead. After all, who wouldn’t want to lose weight, be healthier, save money and reduce global warming? Count me in!

Climate change is nonsense.

If I’m ever lucky enough to bump into millionaire Donald Trump (say at a real estate sale or divorce court), I will rush up to the man and shake his hand. He’s opened my eyes to this global warming hoax once and for all. Addressing an audience of 500 admirers at the Trump National Golf Club (Westchester, N.Y.), he uttered these immortal words:

With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore…Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally non-competitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.

I bet those countries aren’t laughing now!

But if there’s one person who does look stupid, it’s me. All these years believing in the power of science, logic, reasoned argument and differentiating between weather and climate, and now the Donald’s blown that baloney into the weeds. But I can take it – after all, I’d rather get my story correct than support some thoughtless populist prejudice designed to further the political agendas of self-serving elites. Don, you’re the man.

But I want more from our Gore-slaying guru of truthiness. I want him to explain the specifics. What say you to these thorny issues, Mr. Trump?

1. Increasingly extreme weather. Any fool can see that the earth can’t be warming up if it’s snowing! So what is causing all this weird weather right now? There’s only one rational conclusion: the earth must be cooling down. (I’m blaming all these wind turbines, it’s like global air-con).

2. Crops are on the run. Guatemalan coffee growers are moving their plantations, claiming that climbing temperatures are putting their livelihoods at risk. Scottish soft fruit is in danger of getting squished. Indian farmers are insuring themselves against crop failure. To them all I say – what’s wrong with tinned food? This loose food fad has to stop sometime, might as well be now. (And don’t get me started on that organic rubbish).

3. The mountains are thawing. The glaciers are melting on Everest and the Himalayan snows are turning into lakes. What’s that about, Don? No, I’ve got it – summer’s coming! Of course. These things are so obvious if you spend the time to really think them through.

4. The seas are rising. The island chain of the Maldives is sliding beneath the waves, and its inhabitants are responding with heavy investment in a zero-carbon economy. Heavy. See what I’m saying? The heavier it is, the less it floats. (Pro tip, guys: use coal, it gets lighter the more you use it).

5. The ice-caps are melting. The Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up (here’s the latest from the US Geological Survey), making the oceans rise twice as fast as they were doing in the 1970s. The summer polar ice cap is 20% reduced from its 1979 coverage. Where’s it all going? It’s this snow we’re having! Gotcha. The ice isn’t melting, it’s just moving around! Give it a few years and it’ll be right back at the poles again, you’ll see.

Am I on the right track, Don?

Image: Trump Ice Skating Rink in Central Park, New York, by James Trosh

]]> http://ecosalon.com/donald-trump-sets-the-world-straight/feed/ 8 http://ecosalon.com/global-warming-no-burps-about-it/ http://ecosalon.com/global-warming-no-burps-about-it/#comments Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:00:24 +0000 Liz Lewis http://www.ecosalon.com/?p=31954

Could breeding burpless sheep help a country reduce its greenhouse gas emissions?

According to an article in the Herald Sun, Australian scientists at the Sheep Co-operative Research Center are planning on finding out. They are in the process of testing 700 sheep with 20 different genetic lines in the hope of discovering, if not a burpless sheep, at least which ones will  burp less methane into the atmosphere than others.

So how do you measure the methane in a sheep’s belch?

Fairly simply, according to study leader John Goody. First you feed them. And then you accommodate them in specially designed booths capable of calculating the amount of methane gas per belch.

Given that agriculture, and in particular grazing livestock, accounts for at least 16 percent of Australia’s greenhouse emissions, the ability to selectively breed sheep genetically less predisposed to belching methane could possibly be a plausible way of helping to reduce Australia’s total emissions.

Woolly thinking or major scientific breakthrough? You decide.

Image: brew ha ha

Remember when “Rowdy” Roddy Piper body slammed Mr. T during their boxing match? T was winning. Piper was frustrated. The body slam was utterly against the rules and unsportsmanlike, yet highly entertaining.

The global warming debate going on in the blogosphere this week has been the eco equivalent.

Anti-environmentalists and some pro-business and right wing media have been throwing global warming science into question all month by means both dignified and uncouth. They’re annoyed by increasing global recognition of science that validates the idea mankind should work to control its greenhouse gas emissions.

Then, Monday (Dec. 7, 2009) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made two important climate change-related scientific “findings” official with what is known as a “signing.” One, that “greenhouse gases”¦threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations,” and another, that greenhouse gas pollution is partly caused by cars or, in government speak, “new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines,” potentially inviting auto industry regulation.

With the EPA signings and the Copenhagen summit on climate change taking place this week, the aforementioned debaters got louder – including Sarah Palin – and suffered rebuttals galore (and by Al Gore) to their arguments including: climate change just happens in nature, so mankind need not worry; scientists inside top research organizations doubt global warming exists or matters and have been hiding evidence that suggests this; and regulations of greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or helpful to people.

Did they raise some valid points?

Scott Rosenberg, the founder of Mediabugs.org, non-fiction author and a co-founder of Salon.com, says of “Climategate,” that experienced science beat reporters are likely to have covered the issue accurately, while political writers and generalists, who don’t have the time to understand the science as deeply, have too often followed the “on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand” template, amplifying “dissenters in the field who can be found on the fringes.”

Mediabugs.org seeks “to create a neutral forum where journalists and public can talk about these things,” says Rosenberg. In other words, he wants to give the public a respectful and easy way to interact with journalists online when inaccuracies or concerns arise, and to keep news people honest.

Rosenberg also advises the eco-curious online, “Start from a point of knowledge about what you are reading and who wrote it.” If it’s in Forbes, for example, or written by an auto industry reporter the story will likely defend the interests of business, more than it will portray the consensus view of scientists on climate change.

Check the links below for some of the heaviest smack down action between climate change authorities and greenhouse gas doubters.

Basic Reading

“Numerous right-wing media figures have attempted to undermine the case for action against global climate change by comparing the scientific consensus that human activity is driving global warming to a ‘cult.’ However, as the Union of Concerned Scientists has stated, the scientific understanding of climate change is ‘based on the work of thousands of scientists from hundreds of research institutions’”¦” – A comprehensive Media Matters report quoting the press entities who cast doubt about otherwise highly regarded climate change science.

-¦The naysayers literally jumped at the chance to debunk all scientific study pertaining to the effects of climate change, yanking three sentences out of over 1,000 items of correspondence and deeming them a smoking gun”¦Now, the debate is settled. At least, for the intelligent people out there. The idiots are still buying Hummers.”- A blog entry entitled “Climate-Gate for Idiots” by Joe Ascanio at the green travel site, The Daily Beast by Benjamin Sarlin

Further Resources:

An article on MSNBC entitled “Al Gore Rebuts Palin’s Climate Change Claims” that includes links to a transcript of an Andrea Mitchell interview with Al Gore for NBC television, and to Sarah Palin’s original opinion piece.

“Forbes Publishes Fiction on Climate Change Debate” a report by Jim Naureckas for Fair.org.

Gary Sutton’s essay for Forbes called “The Fiction of Climate Science,” in which Sutton says climatologists are (very) wrong about global warming.

The website of the Extreme Ice Survey, an organization using “time-lapse photography, conventional photography, and video to document the rapid changes now occurring on the Earth’s glacial ice.”

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and business highlights by Lora Kolodny.

Image: Alaskan Dude

The Department of Energy was asleep at the wheel, but  tough new national appliance standards for 26 common household and business products during President Obama’s term could slash total U.S. electricity use by over 1,900 terawatt hours (1.9 trillion kilowatt hours) by 2030.

The savings to the consumers and businesses: Over $123 billion.

This was the findings of a report released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP). It  figures the standards will make a huge contribution to our efforts to cut global warming pollution by eliminating 158 million tons per year by 2030, roughly the amount emitted by 63 large conventional coal-fired power plants.

It’s a win-win situation when the feds  commit to working with makers of water heaters, home furnaces and refrigerators to cut emissions and return money to the American taxpayer.

In the report, called Ka-BOOM, U.S. electricity use in 2,000 saw a 2.5% reduction due to existing standards, before all the power players were on board.

By 2010, the savings will grow to a projected 7% reduction and a 12% reduction by 2030. The authors say even greater gains could have been met had the DOE met the legal deadlines for updated standards that passed without any action between 1994 and 2004.

Here are some of the numbers highlighted by Grist:

• Over 1,900 terawatt-hours saved by 2030, or roughly enough power to meet the total electricity needs of every American household for 18 months.
• About 65,000 megawatts of peak demand savings in 2030, or around 6 percent of total U.S. generating capacity projected for 2030.
• About $123 billion in net present value benefits from products purchased through 2030.
• 158 million metric tons of carbon dioxide avoided in 2030, or 2.6 percent of total U.S. projected emissions in that year-equivalent to taking 30 million cars off the road.
• Existing standards have saved every household $2,800 dollars and standards set in the next few years will save an additional $1,100.

The Obama administration has put energy standards as the top priority of its energy plan. The President’s memorandum, combined with court orders and Congressional deadlines, require that the DOE complete new standards for 26 products by 2013.

Among the products targeted are pool heaters, incandescent reflector lamps, refrigerated vending machines, residential water heaters, furnace fans, battery chargers, commercial clothes washers and walk-in coolers and freezers.

Why are standards so crucial? The benefits are huge for the nation in terms of lowering bills, reducing greenhouse emissions and other pollutants, lowering peak electric demand levels and reducing the strain on the electric grid. Plus, it minimizes the need to build new costly power plants and alleviates the pressure on overall energy prices.

Image: pasukaru76

On April 17th, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.

This opens the door to regulating the six main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)) under the Clean Air Act. A 60-day comment period in effect until June 23rd.

This ruling could be the beginning of our government finally taking action on global warming. Currently, greenhouse gases are not considered “pollutants”. If this rule holds it will have sweeping implications for the largest greenhouse gas emitters, and could set us on the path toward a green economy.

Expect a fight. Three major industries would be heavily affected by this proposed regulation.

Coal, Cars, and Cows

Coal-fired power plants are some of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses. According to Reuters, the coal industry would rather see greenhouse gases regulated by legislation, presumably because the coal states hold a lot of sway in Congress.

According to Grist, automakers will be one of the first on the list to be regulated because “they’re perceived as the lower-hanging fruit.”

California has long been trying to regulate tailpipe emissions, but in 2005 the Bush administration denied the state a waiver that would have allowed it to implement tougher standards than the federal standards. President Obama has said he supports granting the waiver to California, a move automakers oppose.

Cows and other ruminant animals emit methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than Co2, so this regulation could have a huge impact on large-scale farm operations and force agribusiness to pay pollution fines.

According to Farm Policy, former U.S. Agriculture Secretary, Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), is already co-sponsoring legislation to protect livestock producers from what is being called a “cow tax.”

Supporters of the regulation claim this will be the dawn of a new clean economy, creating thousands of high-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. Opponents say it’s just too expensive and it will kill our economy and take the jobs that are left along with it.

Further Reading:

CBS 5
LA Times

Image: SF Brit