With the recent influx of global warming articles and with the presidential race heating up, I wanted to understand all the talk about our carbon footprint and carbon offsetting. CarbonFund.org contents that we are all responsible for climate change and all responsible for the solution. The non-profit organization offers advice on how to reduce current carbon emissions and also how to offset that which you can't reduce.
Lately this idea of carbon offsetting is gaining in popularity. The David Suzuki Foundation defines carbon offsetting as “an emission reduction credit from another organization’s project that results in less carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than would otherwise occur.” Such offsets could be planting trees or using solar or wind power…although this purchase can quickly become complicated. People need to understand what we are purchasing exactly since although some of these offsets sound positive, they may not result in a net-benefit for the environment. To allow buyers to evaluate if specific criteria have been met, the Gold Standard has been developed to screen various vendors and see if they are legitimate.
A critical factor in carbon offsetting is ‘Additionality’ or Beyond-Business-as-Usual, which is a term used by Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to describe the fact that certain reduction projects would not have occurred if it had not been for the concern of climate change. This is a thriving business and like anything else (sigh) this is a potential for deception as some of these companies’ claims are not substantiated.
As the NY Times posted “Consumers seem to be confronted with green-sounding offers at every turn. Volkswagen told buyers last year that it would offset their first year of driving by planting in what it called the VW Forest in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley (the price starts at $18).
Dell lets visitors to its site fill their shopping carts with carbon offsets for their printers, computer monitors and even for themselves (the last at a cost of $99 a year).
Continental Airlines lets travelers track the carbon impact of their itineraries.
General Electric and Bank of America will translate credit card rewards points into offsets.”
These credits are now around every corner. So, before purchasing, take a moment to research the vendor and see where your money is actually going. In the coming months this issue will face increased scrutiny and hopefully this will weed out those that are in this to turn green into gold.
For additional information on purchasing carbon assets, please consider the following resources and websites:
- Clean Air Cool Planet: Consumer’s Guide to Carbon Offsets for Carbon Neutrality
- David Suzuki Foundation
- The Gold Standard Organization
- World Wildlife Fund: Gold Standard Q&A
- More information on ‘Additionality’
Posted by Liz
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
'Green' Coffins?
Part of the latest environmental trend is natural or 'green' burials. This requires "no formaldehyde embalming, no cement vaults, no chemical lawn treatments and no laminated caskets." Advocates of the process say that the natural burials have less of an impact on the earth compared to regular coffins and cremation with its use of fossil fuels...
Companies like The Natural Burial Company sell eco-coffins including some made out of recycled newspapers. It will be interesting to see if this is another fleeting trend or if it's a genuine innovation..
Click here to read the full article on CNN.com
Posted by Liz
Companies like The Natural Burial Company sell eco-coffins including some made out of recycled newspapers. It will be interesting to see if this is another fleeting trend or if it's a genuine innovation..
Click here to read the full article on CNN.com
Posted by Liz
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
RECYCLING: The perils of being thirsty!
All of my childhood I was told to get a summertime drink of water from the outside hose. I still do it while working outside (once you get past the first 30 seconds of scalding hot water and the awful taste, it's okay), and I still use the tap inside. This mentality along with my understanding of the terrible waste stream associated with plastic bottles has jaded me against bottled water. This New York Times article, The (Possible) Perils of Being Thirsty while Being Green, suggests there's a danger to your health as a reason to avoid bottled water - especially if you think you're going to be 'green' by washing and reusing the bottles. (This is precisely what I do when I cave in and buy a bottle of water!)
From the Times article, "the trouble with reusing those plastic bottles is that each time they are washed and refilled they become a little more scratched and crinkly, which can lead them to degrade. That can cause a trace metal called antimony to leach out", said Frederick S. vom Saal, a professor of biology at the University of Missouri who has studied plastics for years. “We have to assume that along with that metal, others are almost certainly leaching out as well, but we don’t know what they are and we don’t know what to look for because manufacturers won’t tell us what else is in the bottles,” Professor vom Saal said.
Most plastic bottles are stamped with a recycling code, No. 1 to No. 7. “If I was to use plastic, I would stay with No. 2 and No. 5,” Professor vom Saal said. "No. 2 is high-density polyethylene; No. 5 is polypropylene. Both are used in margarine tubs and yogurt containers for example". But, he warned, do not heat anything in any type of plastic in the microwave. If you do use these hard No. 7 plastic bottles, the Green Guide, published by the National Geographic Society, advises you to avoid washing them in a dishwasher or with harsh detergent to limit wear and tear.
Plastic containers are easily recycled and since very few among us can avoid using them, the least we can do is ensure they get recycled. Perhaps that type of re-use is also avoiding some health risks associated with washing and re-using them ourselves?!
(There is a lot of good information about plastic bottles at the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers webpage.)
(classic Bacsik)
From the Times article, "the trouble with reusing those plastic bottles is that each time they are washed and refilled they become a little more scratched and crinkly, which can lead them to degrade. That can cause a trace metal called antimony to leach out", said Frederick S. vom Saal, a professor of biology at the University of Missouri who has studied plastics for years. “We have to assume that along with that metal, others are almost certainly leaching out as well, but we don’t know what they are and we don’t know what to look for because manufacturers won’t tell us what else is in the bottles,” Professor vom Saal said.
Most plastic bottles are stamped with a recycling code, No. 1 to No. 7. “If I was to use plastic, I would stay with No. 2 and No. 5,” Professor vom Saal said. "No. 2 is high-density polyethylene; No. 5 is polypropylene. Both are used in margarine tubs and yogurt containers for example". But, he warned, do not heat anything in any type of plastic in the microwave. If you do use these hard No. 7 plastic bottles, the Green Guide, published by the National Geographic Society, advises you to avoid washing them in a dishwasher or with harsh detergent to limit wear and tear.
Plastic containers are easily recycled and since very few among us can avoid using them, the least we can do is ensure they get recycled. Perhaps that type of re-use is also avoiding some health risks associated with washing and re-using them ourselves?!
(There is a lot of good information about plastic bottles at the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers webpage.)
(classic Bacsik)
Monday, January 7, 2008
The Debate on Energy and Climate Continues
So we had a debate night this past Saturday with all of the potential presidential candidates discussing their energy and climate policies. Interestingly enough, Clinton went after Obama for voting on the 2005 energy bill:
“You know, the energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it. I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare. Now we’re all out on the campaign trail talking about taking the tax subsidies away from the oil companies, some of which were in that 2005 energy bill.”
Click here for the full transcript in the New York Times.
Posted by Liz
“You know, the energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it. I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare. Now we’re all out on the campaign trail talking about taking the tax subsidies away from the oil companies, some of which were in that 2005 energy bill.”
Click here for the full transcript in the New York Times.
Posted by Liz
Saturday, January 5, 2008
CLIMATE: Environmentally and economically sustainable future?
While the consumption rate of at least 1 billion of us (industrialized world) is 32, the rate for the rest of the world is quite low. Per Jared Diamond's article on consumption rates, assuming that our rate remains the same and the rest of the developing world reaches our rate by mid-century, consumption rates would be equivalent to a total population of 72 million people!! Crazy you say? Well, China and India are the largest of these developing countries and their consumption rates are still 11 times lower than ours, and if they both catch up to us the world's consumption rate 'triples'!
Consumption and pollution are inextricably linked, and the US is the largest contributer. To help mitigate our environmental damage, 190 countries met at the United Nations conference on climate change and global warming in Bali last month (the conference was the first international effort to replace the Kyoto Protocols that expire in 2012. Talks will continue until a followup conference scheduled for 2009).
The resulting, Bali Action Plan, contains no binding commitments but states that “deep cuts in global emissions will be required” and provides a timetable for two years of talks. Paula Dobriansky, the head of the American delegation in Bali, said that she was committed to obtaining an “environmentally effective and economically sustainable” agreement by 2009.
The United States cannot dictate behavior to the rest of the world, but we can lead by example.
Thinking about and reducing consumption everyday is a great first step.
(classic Bacsik)
Consumption and pollution are inextricably linked, and the US is the largest contributer. To help mitigate our environmental damage, 190 countries met at the United Nations conference on climate change and global warming in Bali last month (the conference was the first international effort to replace the Kyoto Protocols that expire in 2012. Talks will continue until a followup conference scheduled for 2009).
The resulting, Bali Action Plan, contains no binding commitments but states that “deep cuts in global emissions will be required” and provides a timetable for two years of talks. Paula Dobriansky, the head of the American delegation in Bali, said that she was committed to obtaining an “environmentally effective and economically sustainable” agreement by 2009.
The United States cannot dictate behavior to the rest of the world, but we can lead by example.
Thinking about and reducing consumption everyday is a great first step.
(classic Bacsik)
Friday, January 4, 2008
Consumption….All Roads Lead Back to Kyoto
Before yesterday morning the number 32 didn’t have a lot of meaning. According to economists, the number 32 is significant in a number of ways:
“To mathematicians, 32 is an interesting number: it’s 2 raised to the fifth power, 2 times 2 times 2 times 2 times 2. To economists, 32 is even more special, because it measures the difference in lifestyles between the first world and the developing world. The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world. That factor of 32 has big consequences.”
- Click here to read the full article by Jared Diamond at the New York Times.
The population is rapidly increasing, this is something that we are all aware of. Diamond has us examine the issue of consumption. The Kenyans are more then 30 million people, but their consumption is so low that it hardly affects the world. Other developing countries have a much more high-consumption lifestyle (i.e. China and India)…which is even scarier if they reach American consumption rates.
Posted by Liz
“To mathematicians, 32 is an interesting number: it’s 2 raised to the fifth power, 2 times 2 times 2 times 2 times 2. To economists, 32 is even more special, because it measures the difference in lifestyles between the first world and the developing world. The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world. That factor of 32 has big consequences.”
- Click here to read the full article by Jared Diamond at the New York Times.
The population is rapidly increasing, this is something that we are all aware of. Diamond has us examine the issue of consumption. The Kenyans are more then 30 million people, but their consumption is so low that it hardly affects the world. Other developing countries have a much more high-consumption lifestyle (i.e. China and India)…which is even scarier if they reach American consumption rates.
Posted by Liz
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
It's time to face the reality of global warming
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued various reports and predictions on climate effects for 2100. One prediction was that “the global temperature could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius, compared to the 1990 level, saying such an impact could be abrupt or irreversible.”
Recently, a Nature Geoscience study, issued a report that warned of "High rates of sea-level rise during the last interglacial period," and found that sea levels may rise twice what the IPCC had projected.
Just to put this in perspective, a one-meter rise in sea levels would submerge a third of Bangladesh….(not to mention the effects for the Floridians).
Posted by Liz
Recently, a Nature Geoscience study, issued a report that warned of "High rates of sea-level rise during the last interglacial period," and found that sea levels may rise twice what the IPCC had projected.
Just to put this in perspective, a one-meter rise in sea levels would submerge a third of Bangladesh….(not to mention the effects for the Floridians).
Posted by Liz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)