Dairy farms have received major flack for their contributions to climate change, but one dairy farmer in northern California is taking major steps to reduce – and even reverse – his farm’s effect on the environment. Albert Straus’ methane-generated electricity solution turns cow waste into fuel for his entire dairy farm, including his brand-new full-scale electric feed truck.

Straus Family Creamery: A Beacon of Sustainable Dairy Farming

The global carbon footprint of animal agriculture is astronomical: the industry contributes one-fourth of the total global water footprint according to WaterFootprint.org, 19 percent of which comes entirely from dairy production. Compounded with the fact that the methane produced by dairy cows alone makes up two percent of the total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions worldwide according to the FAO report “Greenhouse Gas Emissions From the Dairy Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment,” dairy production seems pretty far from being even remotely environmentally friendly.

But in California, where 25 percent of the state’s methane emissions come from the dairy industry, the Straus Family Creamery has long been looking for ways to offset the environmental cost of producing dairy.

Albert Straus is the second generation owner of the family farm, founded by his father in 1941. Following in the footsteps of his parents, who were committed to sustaining small family farms in the area, Straus took over the management of the farm in the 1970s and immediately beginning to implement innovative practices that would keep the farm sustainable: he converted to a no-till system, developed a manure wastewater pond system, and even transitioned the farm to organic.

“I’ve always looked at how to minimize the effect on the environment, help to revitalize rural communities, and help to make a sustainable farming system that farmers can profit from,” says Straus.

The Truck that Runs on Cow Poop

Straus’ newest sustainable farming brainchild is a semi-truck that runs entirely on electricity, a project he’s been mulling over for about eight years with the goal of allowing his dairy farm to transform the waste it produces into something useful.

The method to the methane madness is a biodigester capable of turning manure into clean energy and heat, a tool that the Creamery has been using since 2004. The $330,000 system includes an 80 kW generator, which produces about 28,800 kWh of clean electricity every month. The investment should pay for itself within the next few years and will eventually save the farm up to $50,000 in costs per year, especially now that all of the farm’s electricity comes from methane gas.

With Straus’ new idea, methane gas also replaces fossil fuel: Albert Straus and a local mechanic collaborated to convert a 33,000 pound International Harvester into an all-electric hauler about a month ago, closing the dairy farm production loop: the truck brings the feed to the cows that make the waste to fuel the truck… and on and on it goes.

“The idea is that the cows will be powering the truck that feeds them,” says Straus.

While this is an exciting innovation, Straus doesn’t have lofty goals about making a whole fleet (so Elon Musk has no need to worry about competition with Tesla’s forthcoming electric semi truck).

“The truck goes, like, a mile up the hill to feed the heifers, and it doesn’t need to go that far or that fast,” says Straus. “I wasn’t trying to make a solution that was going to work for everybody – I was just trying to make a solution that would work for us and other farms.”

The Future of Green Dairy Farming

But Straus won’t stop here. He has worked with the Marin Carbon Project to develop a 20-year plan to sequester 2,000 metric tons of carbon every year (80 percent of which will come from the methane digester), becoming the first dairy in the state to embrace an on-site carbon farming plan.

The dairy farm is also taking steps to restore carbon to the soil via several techniques including composting. A 2014 study from the University of California at Berkeley showed that if between a quarter-inch and a half-inch of compost were applied to just 5 percent of California’s rangelands, it would sequester 28 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere (equivalent to the annual emissions of 6 million cars – nearly half of the vehicles in the state).

Straus isn’t just applying these policies on his own farm or demonstrating sustainable farming practices to the eight other family farms that provide milk to the Creamery. He’s working on helping to build and operate methane digesters for other farmers, especially given the new law passed in California dictating that farmers must reduce their methane emissions by 40 percent by 2030. As a farmer himself, Straus is perfectly positioned to advocate for farmers in the development of this project, noting that they already have a hard enough time managing their farms without having to manage their energy resources as well: any solution must be simple to implement for it to be a success.

“What I’ve tried to do is create a sustainable organic farming model that is good for the earth, the soil, the animals, and the people working on these farms,” Straus told Tree Hugger.

The truck, in other words, is just one piece of a much greater sustainable dairy puzzle.

“It’s kind of part of a bigger picture,” says Straus. “I’m trying to show that organic family dairy farms are part of the solution to climate change through carbon farming, methane digesters, organic farming practices… and now closing the loop using electric vehicles and getting off the fossil fuel.”

Related on EcoSalon
5 Cool Gadgets to Help You Save Energy & Create Your Own Electricity
How Women Farmers Use Potlucks to Come Together
The Tesla Model S and 4 More All-Electric Dream Cars

The post This Dairy Farm Runs on Cow Poop (So Does Its New Feed Truck) appeared first on EcoSalon.

Would you trust a robot to drive you around? Would you trust a robot taxi? What if these driverless cars meant reducing greenhouse gas emissions? This isn’t something out of a science fiction novel. In fact, the cars could be widely available in the next 15 years.

Driverless cars, or more specifically, robo-cabs, are so space age, not to mention a good bit unsettling because they’re the ultimate means of sacrificing control to a computer. But according to researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, driverless robo-cabs could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent when compared to privately owned gas-powered vehicles. What’s more, they could reduce emissions by 82 percent when compared to more efficient hybrid vehicles. The study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

“Autonomous taxis make a promising early business case for connected and automated vehicles because they spread the purchase cost among many users and match appropriate vehicles to trip needs,” wrote Austin Brown of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Washington in an article that accompanied the study, reported in the Los Angeles Times.

The emission reductions on these driveless cars come from so-called “right-sizing” car trips, according to the article.

“Most trips in the U.S. are taken singly, meaning one- or two-seat cars would satisfy most trips,” Greenblatt said in a statement. “That gives us a factor of two savings, since smaller vehicles means reduced energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The driverless cars would be battery operated and far smaller than traditional gas-powered cars.

While many car manufacturers are working to bring the driverless cars to market, Google famously started the discussion a few years back. Their robo-fleet would pick up people on demand using an app.

In 2013, the company invested $258 million in a fleet that’s equipped with cameras, sensors, and radars. The cars cost a reported $150,000 each but Google thinks they can bring the price down in the coming years by making some of the software itself rather than outsourcing the work to auto manufacturers. Even still, there’s a good chance that the vehicles would be worth the price to companies like Uber in gas savings alone. The economic benefits are what bring huge companies like Google and Uber to the table, but the environmental benefits are real and worth the initial investment.

Additionally, if these driverless cars became more widely available, they might eliminate the need for individuals to own their own cars. For example, if the only place you drove was to work and to the grocery store and the rest of your life was in walking distance, it might be cheaper to spend your money on robo-cabs rather than having to invest in the maintenance and gas money of owning your own car. It’s appealing considering the amount of money older cars cost us in maintenance each and every month. And of course, there’s nothing quite as cool as being driven around by a robot.

Related on EcoSalon

Take a Better Walk with Street-Rating Mobile Apps

25 Percent of Cars Cause 90 Percent of Air Pollution, Study Finds

Marketing School and the Lexus HS250h Reviewed

Image: Steve Jurvetson

The post Driverless Cars: Robotic Chauffeurs Could Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 90 Percent appeared first on EcoSalon.

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed the strongest actions yet to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed regulations would cut emissions by as much as 30 percent by 2030.

States could meet the new standards through a variety of methods that include energy efficiency, wind and solar alternatives, shifting from coal to natural gas, power plant upgrades, and encouraging a shift in electricity use during off peak hours. EPA says the approach will allow states flexibility in how they abide by the new regulations.

“This proposal is all about flexibility. That’s what makes it ambitious, but achievable,” said EPA administrator Gina McCarthy in The Washington Post.  McCarthy received two standing ovations and did a fist bump with Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.) before starting her speech. “For the sake of our families’ health and our kids’ future, we have a moral obligation to act on climate.”

Ever since the carbon bill failed in Congress, environmental advocates have been pressing President Obama to take executive action under the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed regulations will cut carbon emissions by 500 million metric tons. The draft proposal is open to public comment.

“This momentous announcement raises the bar for controlling carbon emissions in the United States,” said Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, a Washington research organization, reported in The New York Times, adding, “These new standards send a powerful message around the world.”

These are the strongest actions ever taken by the U.S. to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere; scientists warn they are to blame for global climate change. Burning coal is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. In all, 600 antiquated power plants may have to close if they can’t meet the new regulations, especially considering that some were built when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president. As a result, the proposal is sure to have to withstand a host of lawsuits and legislative attacks.

This sets the U.S. on track to meet U.N. emission reduction targets set in 2009. Over the long term the U.S. has been the largest emitter of greenhouse gas, but today China is the largest emitter.

“I fully expect action by the United States to spur others in taking concrete action,” Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change, said.

Related on EcoSalon

How Many Trees Should You Plant to Offset Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Win for the Clean Air Act 

Will Regulating Emissions Through the Clean Air Act Be the Dawn of a New Era?

Image: Thure Johnson

The post EPA Proposes Strongest Actions Yet to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions appeared first on EcoSalon.

A federal appeals court ruled that the EPA can regulate the emissions of large power plants in a recent and critical ruling for the environmental movement. It’s a big setback for conservative states and energy trade groups that had been challenging the power of the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions.

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that coal and oil fired power plants must be equipped with mechanisms to reduce mercury emissions by some 91 percent under the Clean Air Act.

The opposition was led by a group of conservative states including Michigan, Alaska, and Idaho that claimed the new regulations would cost $9.6 billion and 16,000 jobs in all.

“Congress was focused on the health hazard of emissions and the slowness of EPA regulation of them, and concluded it was reasonable to make decisions without considering costs,” Judge Judith W. Rogers wrote in the opinion, reported in The Washington Post. There was no congressional requirement for the agency to focus on the economic hit.

But the panel may have been swayed by groups like the American Lung Association stating that mercury regulation could prevent some 11,000 premature deaths, 5,000 heart attacks , and 130,000 asthma attacks due to polluted air.

“Today’s legal victory is another giant step forward on the road to cleaner, healthier air,” Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund said to The Hill. “The court recognized that mercury and other dangerous air toxins from coal-fired power plants are a threat to public health, and that we should all be protected from them. Now we must complete the essential work to achieve these clean air protections for our children and for all Americans.”

Related on EcoSalon

Mercury in Seafood: How Do You Know How Much You Can Safely Eat?

Will Regulating Green House Gas Emissions Be the Dawn of a New Era?

EPA Found Guilty of Violating Their Own Clean Air Act Standards

Image: Martin Nikolaj Bech

The post Win for the Clean Air Act: Court Decides EPA Can Regulate Mercury Emissions appeared first on EcoSalon.

We’ve been advised that we humans are destroying the earth with each step, each breath. But it really is hard to fathom exactly what that means. The numbers and premonitions aren’t tangible enough to make our greenhouse gases dilemma something everyone actively fights against on a daily basis.

How about if you knew how many trees you are destroying, and that you have the potential to re-plant, with each press of the “on” button or twist of the keys? The following list gives you a rough idea of how many trees your CO2 emissions equates to on a yearly basis.

The following calculations related to appliances are based on a 2,000-square-foot household and average use of them in a family. The car and motorist calculations were made by Arnia Doria, former Honda executive. Hopefully this list gives you a boosted environmental conscience and help the world cut down on its greenhouse gases.

Can’t plant yourself or want to find a way to get more involved? Organizations like Trees for the Future, Tree People, the Fruit Tree Planting Foundation and GROW can bring action to your intention.

So, the question stands:

How many trees do you need to plant to offset the CO2 emissions of a year’s average use of…

…an unleaded gasoline-fueled vehicle?

6 trees

…a 400cc motorcycle?

6 trees

…a television?

2 trees

…a washing machine?

2-3 trees

…a dryer?

20 trees

…a dishwasher?

10 trees

…a microwave?

4 trees

…an electric heater?

90 trees

…an air-conditioner?

55 trees

…a refrigerator?

21 trees

…a stove?

19 trees

Related on EcoSalon

A Guide to Foraging for Food: 20 Tasty Wild Plants

15 Ways to Decorate with Plants

8 Tips for Reducing Your Carbon Emissions

Photo Credit: woodleywonderworks

The post How Many Trees Should You Plant to Offset Greenhouse Gases? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Carbon dioxide levels on Earth have reached an all-time high. Are we making a new planet? Can we live on it?

Sitting in a packed theater on opening weekend of “Man of Steel,” I couldn’t help notice the similarities between Earth and Krypton, Superman’s home planet (I won’t ruin the movie for you, I promise. The 40 unnecessary minutes of excessive violence will do that for you). Dissension, manipulation of resources, and Krypton’s caste system on par with our economic apartheid, mirror some of Earth’s biggest crises of late. No doubt the parallels weren’t coincidental.

Krypton is clearly in trouble, facing a fate that can’t be avoided, as we know from previous Superman films (or comics, if you have the time for that sort of reading). A highly advanced culture couldn’t figure out how to harness unlimited energy from its star, and, well, poor Kal-El was sent off into the universe orphaned by the devolving stubbornness of his people.

If only we could set a course for another, more hospitable planet.

But we can’t. And we’re not doing this one any favors lately, either, reports Business Insider: “[C]arbon dioxide levels in Earth’s atmosphere reached a major milestone: a daily average above 400 parts per million. The new high — the highest in human history — was recorded at two separate stations — one in Hawaii and the other in San Diego, California.” That’s a 22 point increase in ten years. And nearly a 200 point jump in the last 200 years, since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Since then, carbon dioxide levels have increased steadily, about two parts per million every year. The website 350.org says the “safe level” for carbon dioxide in the air is 350 parts per million.

If you’re not sure what the big deal is, expert Bob Ward of the London School of Economics and Political Science said it’s creating a “prehistoric” climate situation, in which “human societies will face huge and potentially catastrophic risks.”

According to the EPA, carbon dioxide accounted for 84 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. While naturally present in the environment, the majority of “problem” carbon dioxide comes from burning fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil). It traps heat, which is actually a good thing in small doses (it makes the planet, and particularly Los Angeles, pretty hospitable), but in these unprecedented levels, it contributes to global warming, impacting all life on the planet.

The continual rise in CO₂ levels could lead to more melting of ice sheets and higher levels of methane gas from permafrost melt. Climate scientist Michael Mann told the Huffington Post that these types of CO₂ levels haven’t been sustained in more than 10 million years (during the Miocene period). And while we may not care if a few species here or there die off (we lose about 0.1 percent of all species per year), many of them impact our own species as well. You see, all life is connected. And when we start killing off any one of us Earthlings, we inevitably create problems for all the rest of us, too.

We’re already seeing the consequences of greenhouse gases (despite what conservatives tell you). Like Krypton, we’re also becoming keenly aware of the issues we’ve created with digging too deep into the planet for energy. And, sadly, while the chances of a (really, really hot) superhero coming to save our planet are pretty slim, we could sure use some superstrength right now in helping us evolve out of our dependence on industry and mined energy. In that respect, we can all don our capes and adjust our energy consumption, seeing fossil fuels as the villains they truly are.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Image: hiperterminal

The post Are Carbon Dioxide Levels Turning Earth into Krypton? appeared first on EcoSalon.

We’re all eager to find a viable solution to reduce greenhouse emissions without ruining the economy, but coal probably ain’t it right now.

Clean coal is nothing but “a joke,” according to Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. And the reasons to believe him are compelling, turning ex-coal hopefuls like me against this apparent fraud in the alternative-fuel biz. And despite ample buzz surrounding the idea of clean coal as a pristine energy source, prominent nature defenders such as Greenpeace shun the pursuit of coal as an answer to our climate-change problem. Looking beyond the hype, it’s pretty easy to see why coal’s squeaky-clean image is only a facade.

Here’s the theory behind clean coal: Coal is the dirtiest form of energy that exists, but by limiting emissions you can reduce the pollution. To achieve this, you can “scrub” away noxious impurities like sulfur, which causes acid rain when burned, and then build plants that capture greenhouse gasses as the coal burns in order to prevent them from entering the atmosphere. Another option is to avoid coal combustion altogether in favor of a gasification process that uses oxygen and steam, no burning required.

This all sounds pretty good, right? Unfortunately, environmental experts smell a wolf in sheep’s clothing. First of all, the technology for carbon capture and gasification simply isn’t there, despite billions of dollars worth of research. Brune notes that the capturing process we’re working on is too expensive, uses massive amounts of energy and requires the construction of new plants just to trap the emissions from existing ones—not exactly efficient. Plus, the very act of mining coal is highly destructive, often involving the removal of entire mountaintops. Not cool.

The truth is that coal has powerful lobbyists spending tens of millions of dollars to convince us and Congress that clean coal is the answer, says Greenpeace. Lobbyists run alluring ads on TV during prime viewing times, omitting the fact that coal burning produces mercury contamination in addition to air pollution, literally spewing carcinogens. Coal already produces about half of our electricity, which is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country.

The good news is that we don’t have to look far for better alternatives. Brune endorses natural gas as a “bridge fuel” until we find a better solution—which could even prove to be coal if we discover safe and effective extraction and burning options. As plentiful as natural gas is in the United States, this option makes sense until technology catches up with our needs.

Smaller-scale renewable options also work well for certain communities. The Natural Resources Defense Council pushes wind energy, solar energy, hydropower, geothermal energy and offshore tidal energy where they’re possible. Farmers can even produce energy using gases from animal waste—I assume they remove the smell.

With all the options out there, clean coal just doesn’t make sense right now. With luck, technology will find a way to make coal sustainable; but until that happens, we’re better off looking elsewhere to solve our energy needs.

image: gynti_46

The post The Dirt on Clean Coal: Looking Beyond the Alternative Fuel Hype appeared first on EcoSalon.

Aviation and space exploration suck – fossil fuel that is. Not to mention clean air, and quiet habitat. Can these industries, so essential to global scientific and economic progress, go green? The race is definitely on.

Offering hope, inspiring blog posts and tweets-a-plenty over the past two weeks were the test flight of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, which burns 20% less fuel than other passenger planes of its approximate size, and the unveiling of the world’s first, commercial passenger space craft, the SpaceShipTwo (SS2) by Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites. SS2 is reportedly more fuel efficient than NASA’s spacecraft.

But such breakthroughs are just the start of what’s possible, in terms of fuel efficiency and other environmental advances, says Joe Parrish, vice president of research and development for Aurora Flight Sciences in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Aurora makes innovative aerospace products, including unmanned space vehicles, planes that can fit in your pocket, and planes with a 500-foot wingspan that can stay aloft for five years.

Working on the NASA N+3 “future commercial flight program” with Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and the engine technology firm Pratt & Whitney, Aurora Flight Services’ research showed, in preliminary results, “that as much as 40% fuel reduction can be achieved through reduced cruise speed and redesign of aircraft,” Parrish reported.

In other words – a makeover and taking it easy!?

“You can’t take an existing aircraft and just reduce its speed to realize these environmental benefits. It’s not a matter of pulling back the throttle. But the redesigned aircraft does not look totally different from the old,” Parrish notes.

The more fuel efficient flying machine Aurora researchers envision (illustration, above) would be designed to cruise at mach 0.72 instead of the industry standard of mach 0.8. It would not have to use composite materials (which are lighter weight and used in the newly tested Boeing 787 Dreamliner) but it could use conventional aluminum and manufacturing technology, while still saving substantial amounts of fuel.

25% of costs for a typical airliner are spent on fuel, studies show. So the environmental benefits should deliver economic benefits, too.

Can the same efficiencies apply to space travel and space ships? As an industry, commercial space travel is too nascent to “go green,” Parrish says. But it is starting with a very ecological-minded entrepreneur, Richard Branson, along with pioneering spacecraft designer Burt Rutan. Branson famously supported and financed the development of alternative, renewable energy and signed the Clinton Global Initiative in 2006.

A report out on Wednesday (Dec. 16, 2009) from the American Lung Association showed “sixty percent of Americans live in areas with unhealthy air pollution levels,” even with new laws in place attempting to regulate and improve air quality. Every little bit of petroleum saved, and greenhouse gas emission avoided, helps.

Read up on the Boeing 787, and the SpaceshipTwo, and make your wishes for greener commercial and space flight known.

Basic Reading:

“With more than 300 future passengers already putting up the $200,000 for a seat on SpaceShipTwo, there appears to be a strong demand for the rides to the blackness of space…” – Wired.com

“Boeing’s first new aircraft for ten years represents a radical departure for the manufacturer, eschewing traditional aircraft materials in favour of composites, in the pursuit of efficiency and lightness. If the composites, comprising 50% of the aircraft by weight, do not perform as expected, major headaches could emerge.”- Center for Asia Pacific Aviation

“The [Boeing 787] Dreamliner will offer greater efficiency for airlines”¦ The plane [should] use 20% less fuel than today’s aircraft of comparable size, provide up to 45% more cargo capacity and include a new interior environment with cleaner air, larger windows, more stowage space, improved lighting and other conveniences.”- AviationRecord.com

Further Resources:

A NasaWatch blog entry in anticipation of the roll out of SpaceShipTwo, entitled “Big Party in the Mojave Tonight”

A blog entry at UniverseToday that includes photos and a video tour of the six-passenger vehicle, the SpaceShipTwo

A story in the New York Times entitled “A Takeoff and Hope for Boeing”

The official home page of N.A.S.A., the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the U.S. Government

Image: Aurora

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

The post EcoMeme: The Future of Flight, Fuel Efficient? appeared first on EcoSalon.