This month carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million globally for the first time since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) started tracking it.

Concentrations are measured at 40 sites globally including two Arctic sites and a site in Hawaii.

“It was only a matter of time that we would average 400 parts per million globally,” Pieter Tans of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network said in a news release, reported by IFL Science. “This marks the fact that humans burning fossil fuels have caused global carbon dioxide concentrations to rise more than 120 parts per million since pre-industrial times.” Half of that rise came about after 1980.

The last time carbon dioxide levels were this high, humans had not even evolved yet, so we’re not quite sure what this means for the human race. But it’s no good.

According to IFL Science:

[G]lobal concentrations are expected to stay above 400 ppm through May: While decaying plant matter and soil microbes give off CO2 all year long, a dormant period in plant growth means respiration of CO2 is heightened during these months. Levels drop as plants start to bloom late in the spring and summertime, since CO2 is used during photosynthesis.

Carbon dioxide is emitted mostly by humans, who account for 82 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Though the gas is naturally present on Earth, human activities are adding carbon to the atmosphere as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels for electricity, transportation, and industrial processes. Prior to the industrial revolution, the carbon cycle was balanced, that means that it was constantly being emitted and absorbed by the atmosphere, but fossil fuel combustion has led to more carbon that can be safely absorbed. That’s why levels are on the rise. It’s a process that’s difficult to turn around, but it can be done.

“Elimination of about 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions would essentially stop the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” says James Butler of NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division. “But concentrations of carbon dioxide would not start decreasing until even further reductions are made and then it would only do so slowly.”

If carbon dioxide levels continue to rise the atmosphere will continue to warm because greenhouse gas emissions block heat in the atmosphere from escaping. Just to give you an idea, humans have increased carbon dioxide concentrations by one-third since the industrial revolution. That’s a huge number. If you’re wondering the easiest way that we as a society can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are warming our atmosphere, stop the combustion of fossil fuels like crude, coal, and natural gas. Additionally, stop eating the animal products which come from livestock that produce methane. It’s no easy feat, but when you consider the alternative, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced and rapidly.

Related on EcoSalon

On the Front Lines of Global Climate Change and Women’s Rights

Is it ‘Global Warming’ or is it ‘Climate Change’?

Berkeley Approves Global Warming Warning Labels at Gas Pumps

Image of greenhouse gas emissions from Shuttershock

The post The Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High, Humans Hadn’t Evolved appeared first on EcoSalon.

If you’ve been a vegetarian for any length of time you likely knew this in the back of your mind. You might have even become a vegetarian for one of these reasons. But hard evidence like this makes it much easier to argue your point at the dinner table and feel good about passing on the ribeye. Understanding the benefits of being vegetarian makes the diet that much more appealing.

I originally cut out meat because I moved to a place with few organic and free range options and then gradually realized that (1) I didn’t really need meat and (2) It’s cruel to eat it anyway. Here are a few more reasons.

A recent study at the Loma Linda Medical Center in California found one of the main benefits of being vegetarian is that the diet reduces your greenhouse gas emissions by one-third. Additionally, the study of more than 96,000 Seventh Day Adventists in the U.S. and Canada found that the mortality rate for non-vegetarians was 20 percent higher than for vegetarians and semi-vegetarians.

“The study sample is heterogeneous and our data is rich. We analyzed more than 73,000 participants. The level of detail we have on food consumption and health outcomes at the individual level makes these findings unprecedented,” said Sam Soret, Ph.D., MPH, associate dean at Loma Linda University School of Public Health and co-author of the study, reported in Science World Report.

Researchers contend that humans should consider the large scale production of a vegetarian diet both for health of the planet and the health of the human race.

“Throughout history, forced either by necessity or choice, large segments of the world’s population have thrived on plant-based diets,” said Joan Sabate, M.D., DrPH, nutrition professor at the Loma Linda University School of Public Health and co-author of the study, according to a news release.

Related on EcoSalon

99 Sources of Vegan Protein

Debating Reasons to Be Vegan

Why I Am Not a Vegetarian

Image: Brandon Shea

The post More Benefits of Being Vegetarian: You Live Longer and So Does the Environment (Hopefully) appeared first on EcoSalon.

Pass-fail classes were a gift. I mean, not when I thought I would ace them, because what would be the point? But when getting by wasn’t a sure thing (in my case, for example, in any class that ended in “ometry”), a thumbs up or thumbs down option was a super deal. I could fudge pretty much anything and how hard was it, really, to garner enough lackadaisical sentiment from the powers that be that said: “Whatever. Move along. You’re fine”?

Well, heads up automakers. Teach is onto you. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are looking to take some of the vagaries out of fuel economy labeling by giving new vehicles grades for fuel efficiency. There’s even something on the table resembling a curve, where vehicles will be judged against the performance of their peers. Tough stuff and it won’t be surprising if The Industry doesn’t like what it sees.

The idea is to update the current label, “to provide consumers with simple, straightforward energy and environmental comparisons across all vehicles types, including electric vehicles (EV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), and conventional gasoline/diesel vehicles.” The new stickers will now have “ratings on fuel economy, greenhouse gas emissions, and other air pollutants,” which addresses the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. The new label will be debut on vehicles in the 2012 model year.

For about the next two months, the agencies will be soliciting public comment before choosing between one of two proposed stickers. One is a bit more conventional (below), while the other bears the sure-to-be-controversial grading system (bottom). For the latter, according to the NYT, an A+ means a fuel economy equivalent of at least 117 miles per gallon and would be reserved for zero emission cars. Plug-in hybrids coming in between 59 to 116 miles per gallon would get an A, and “conventional hybrids, like the Toyota Prius and Ford Fusion,” would get an A-. The article goes on to say that if the system were in place today, “306 small cars from model year 2010 would receive a B, only eight S.U.V.’s would receive a B+ (68 would get a C), and the highest grade for a van would be a C+.”

Grades aside, a good old MPG ranking will be on whatever label ends up stuck on the windows of 2012 cars and trucks, as well as a “fuel consumption value” chart that measures gallons of fuel required per 100 miles. Egogeek points out that “upstream emissions, such as the emissions from a power plant generating electricity to recharge a vehicle, would not be listed on the label,” but there will a website offered where you can get more info if you want to check it out.

The NYT article is already reporting negative auto industry reaction, saying “the letter grades –  from A+ to D – were immediately denounced by some industry groups, which said the government should not be making value judgments for consumers about vehicles.” I suppose that’s to be expected by a group that’s not used to such getting graded so specifically on its work.

It’s going to be interesting to see how the grading system plays out, if that’s the route that’s chosen, as such an approach is always a delicate proposal. Witness the movie rating system where an NC-17 versus an R can make or break a film even before its release. The trick is going to be objective accuracy and if it’s done right, the carrot of a good grade might just be what’s indicated to get some of slackers in gear.

The post Fuel Grades: New EPA Vehicle Efficiency Labels to Make a Mark on 2012 Models appeared first on EcoSalon.

The weather this summer in the Bay Area has been nothing short of awful. And with me being what my friend calls a “High Priest of Ra,” it’s been posited that my missing a sacrifice or committing some other ungodly affront has resulted in this madness. We’re talking stretches of frigid weeks in July, a sunless, cold anti-summer, followed by sudden August temperature spikes reaching 104 degrees and literally melting the candles in my apartment. 104? I mean, this is San Francisco. Are you kidding me? Dear Lord, could it really be my fault? Do the weather gods care about us humans and what we do here on earth?

Evidently they do care. A lot. Human-induced global warming and our fossil fuel mission/vision of burn ’em if we got ’em has someone or something pissed off. Big.

We’ve all had the conversations that start with “How many hurricanes was it this year?” or “The summers have never been like this before!” or “When I was a kid we’d have snow days where we couldn’t even leave the house! What happened to those?”

Invariably, these openers are followed by, “Yeah, right, and there’s no global warming.” Indeed, for general weather phenomena like these, science has been emerging that shows connections between human activity and broad brush climatic change.

But take the conversation a step further to speak about a certain climatic event – the Russian heat wave, say, or Pakistan flooding – and it becomes more challenging to point to a particular culprit. While we all seem to instinctively know there’s a connection between specific weather events and what we’re up to on the ground, the science hasn’t been there to make absolute links, as in “that flood came from that weather pattern which came from those countries burning this much fossil fuel back in these years.” Capiche?

Scientists are beginning to capiche.

Earlier this month, white coats from all over the world gathered in Broomfield, Colorado, at a National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and International Group on Attribution of Climate-Related Events (ACE) workshop series on the “science, application, and communication of climate attribution information.” As defined by the NOAA, climate attribution is “a scientific process for establishing the principal causes or physical explanation for observed climate conditions and phenomena.” This includes attribution for variations “for which great public interest exists because they produce profound societal impacts.”

In other words, what’s behind the mega-weather headlines.

Not too long ago, our ability to address such questions would have been dismissed, says an article in New Scientist. “Many scientists at the time [a decade ago] said that you can never blame an individual weather event on climate change,” says Myles Allen of the University of Oxford.

But attempts to assign blame for such events goes back to 2004, when Allen and others “showed to a high level of confidence that human greenhouse gas emissions had at least doubled the risk of the European heatwave of 2003.” Their research approach required them to “run thousands of simulations of the climate as it is and as it would have been without human influences, then compare the number of times a given event occurs in each scenario.” Today, technological adavances will enable to such analyses to be much more accurate.

One of the worlshop’s attendees, Dr. Claudia Tebaldi, of Stanford’s Carnegie Institution, says that research already has been able to attribute causes of  trends in continental scale temperatures, large area-averaged precipitation trends, ocean temperature trends, long-term changes in atmospheric humidity and more to, well, us.

“Using sophisticated computer modeling and high quality observations,” she writes, “we are able to say with great confidence that in these changing aspects of our climate system, the fingerprint of human causes is already evident.”

Now the the goal is use new methods to get even more specific regarding particular events and their causes. And while forecasting is of primary importance, right now there’s a lot of buzz around the legal implications of pointing accurate fingers. For example, can one country sue another for activity that can be proven to be responsible for something as devastating as a flood, heat wave or famine?

In 2005, Katrina victims filed a lawsuit against some oil companies, saying their activity in the Gulf contributed to the power of the hurricane. The case was recently dismissed due to a legal glitch, but you get the idea. Big implications here.

Connecting weather events with their causes is going to be a huge undertaking in upcoming years. As climate changes have increasingly profound effects on the lives of millions, people are going to want to know the whys and whos and hows and, hopefully, how to predict and prevent catastrophes going forward. And leaving it up to the gods just ain’t going to cut it. (Sorry, oh dear and powerful Ra. Can I have some more summer please? Just a little? What do you want? A dead goat?)

Image: crowt59

The post Credit Where It’s Due: Attributing Weather Events to the <em>People</em> Responsible appeared first on EcoSalon.

It just became official: global warming is bad for our health.

You think? This headline may look like something lifted from The Onion – but in fact we’re talking legally and in the Here and Now. For the first time, the Environmental Protection Agency appears to have designated greenhouse gases (the most infamous being carbon dioxide) as a danger to human health, opening the way to regulating these gases under the Clean Air Act.

In other words: the government is legally required to directly tackle these gases as pollutants that threaten people right now – not as a form of housekeeping for the future of our planet.

The Obama adminstration has been quick to impress with its unprecedented environmental reforms – but this is potentially colossal. And naturally it has a sizable slice of the commercial sector up in arms. They’re asking the question: is a recession really the time to impose such a check upon economic development? The fear is that all major manufacturing projects will have to comply with stricter emissions controls, which will prove costlier and so hamper economic growth.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is unimpressed, to say the least – but it ties in nicely with the current government’s proposed “cap and trade” system, where companies will have to obtain a permit to be allowed to release emissions.

Whether such hands-on regulation comes from Congress or from the EPA, it appears to be on the way at last. Democrat Edward Markey has stated that the EPA report “will officially end the era of denial on global warming”. And that’s change by anyone’s definition.

Image: Foto43

The post Global Warming Is Bad for You, Says EPA appeared first on EcoSalon.

They’re called Eco Started Kits, but they’re more like emergency kits designed to heal what’s hurting our injured planet: greenhouse emissions, energy out the window, water down the drain.

For $97.50, you get a lot more than a Band-Aid. You get essential tools for an extreme green makeover, as well as a method for measuring and monitoring your carbon footprint as your transformation takes place.

What’s the emergency?

“Because of climate change, we need to get people moving as fast as possible,” says Andrea Nyland, the co-founder of Eco Hatchery, which makes and sells the kits. “We have about a 10-year window to make a difference, and all of the tools included are easy to use and will have a big impact.”

Nyland, an environmental consultant, partnered with Adam Borut to package three types of kits (including two new ones being launched next week) that can cut through the green “noise” that creates obstacles for well-intentioned consumers to start conserving and reducing.

The company surfed green websites to research the best products to go place in their kits. “We’re actually putting the tools in your hands, including booklets that list recycling directories,” says Nyland. “If you need to dispose of your old bulbs, we tell you how to do it safely.”

Among the must-have objects in the starter kit: an eco soy candle; reusable filtered water bottle; water quality test kit; two faucet aerators; three leak detectors; an energy monitor (find out which appliances are sucking the most energy); a compact fluorescent light bulb (premium Phillips Marathon 13-watt CFL that replaces a 60-watt incandescent); removable weather stripping; outlet and light switch sealers; water pipe insulation fitting tools; and an Eco Roadmap to help you identify additional savings.

“As you use the products in the kit, you can imprint information online and measure your success as you shrink your carbon footprint,” says Nyland. This is especially true in the home where she says energy use accounts for over 20% of all the carbon dioxide generated nationwide.

Nyland estimates users can reduce greenhouse emissions by two and a half tons per household the first year, saving about $260. In terms of water use, you’re looking at a savings of one gallon per minute.

Still, the kits aren’t geared just for households. Universities, cities and counties are encouraged to work as teams to reduce their impact.

“Energy efficiency is a hot item, especially with the current administration and the recession,” figures Nyland. “Whether you are motivated by the environment or the economy, you are headed to the same place.”

Eco Hatchery has set up the site so you can send the kits as gifts with a message. Among its best customers so far are real estate agents presenting house warming presents to clients.

In a couple of weeks, those thoughtful agents will be able to send a new Green and Healthy Home Kit ($50), which includes some of the items in the starter kit. Another kit being launched is the Energy Efficiency Kit ($60) with more gadgets for people focused on lowering those utility bills.

One of the best selling points is the packaging, which the company has tried to make as visually pleasing as possible, grouping products into sections and categorizing by activity. “Energy efficiency isn’t always pretty,” observes Nyland. “People rarely think of aerators as attractive gifts.”

The post Emergency Kits for Treating Earth's Hurts appeared first on EcoSalon.