baby steps

So in 2007… I know it seems for away but data like this is always a bit delayed.. the United States had more births EVER RECORDED.  Not only that, but 40% of the births happened out of wedlock.  

That was the fact that made the news.  

Everyone was concerned about the immorality of having children out of wedlock.  But what about the ethical matter of having too many children.  Well, some scientists decided to really figure out the footprint of having a baby.  And, here you go:

 

 

• A mother and father are each responsible for one half of the emissions of their offspring and 1/4 the emissions of their grandchildren and so on forever or thereabouts
• Therefore, under current US conditions, each child adds 9,441 metric tons of CO2 to the carbon legacy of the average female
• That’s 5.7 times her lifetime emissions
• Translation: one child costs nearly 6 times your own CO2 emissions
• In the pessimistic scenario, each American child adds 12,730 metric tons to your carbon legacy
• In comparison, under current Bangladeshi conditions, each child adds 56 metric tons of CO2 to the carbon legacy of the average female

 

The bottom line is that absolutely nothing else you can do—driving a more fuel efficient car, driving less, installing energy-efficient windows, replacing lightbulbs, replacing refrigerators, recycling—comes even close to simply not having that child. All those good things still add up to less than 500 metric tons of CO2 savings. Not having the kid saves between 10,000 and 13,000 metric tons of CO2.

mystery

A few months back, we published a few articles about the German ship that was going to go to the Antarctic to dump iron into the sea that would create and algal bloom that would suck up CO2 and save the planet for all of eternity.

Of course, people were upset because a.) the science hadn’t been proven and b.) they did not get international approval and there were some rumors about it benefitting a corporate interest.

So.. two things.  First, I cannot find any information about what has happened to this ship.  I don’t like that.

Second, new data was released today that algal blooms trap toxins and send them to the ocean floor where they stay for a very long time, according to The New Scientist.

Far from degrading soon after the bloom, as previously assumed, new research suggests that the neurotoxin that causes shellfish poisoning, domoic acid, sinks to the ocean floor and could poison marine mammals, birds and humans.

So, if the ship made it to the Antarctic, if the ship dumped its supply of iron to create the bloom and if the water had any toxins… well, those toxins are there for a long, long time.  Proving that the critics were correct… we just don’t have enough scientific information to try to recreate what the planet does naturally.

opinion: Addicted To (Snake) Oil

by Matt DeNoto

 

Just four weeks ago, I wrote a piece for this site extolling the virtues of ‘Cradle-To-Cradle’ design, in which products are planned from conception to be as environmentally friendly as possible. I mentioned the book Cradle To Cradle: Remaking The Way We Make Things by William McDonough & Michael Braungart. At the bottom of the piece, The Golden Spiral’s editor placed a link to video of a talk given by William McDonough, in which he details a city being built in China founded on C2C. The city would provide food and energy for all of its inhabitants, without producing any waste to sully the surrounding lands. The video left me with a sense of wonder.

But it also left me with a sense of unease. After all, the book was published in 2002, and it ends with the authors optimistically discussing their plans with Ford to redesign their factories. The video was from a talk McDonough gave in 2005.

So…where are the results? Why are we not hearing about C2C on the news? What about the Ford plant? What about the city in China? Is there really so much of a bias against environmentalism that the world would ignore these amazing accomplishments?

No. There is not. The actual answer is more complicated than that, and while it may not have much to do with the environment, it has everything to do with nature. Human nature.

An intriguing and revealing profile in the November 2008 issue of Fast Company reminds us that the people at the forefront of the environmental movement are just as subject to the whims and weaknesses of life as anyone else. While William McDonough has done an excellent job spreading the word about the problems our world faces, his record with solutions is less than exemplary.

That city in China? It now sits abandoned and rotting. Not only did it cost far more than estimated, the design was fatally flawed. The city planned to use corn husks as biofuel to run the village. But the Chinese farmers who would actually be living there already had a use for the corn husks, as feed for their goats. When presented with this conflict by his crew as the village was being constructed, McDonough was evasive. He seemed only to visit when there was a camera crew following him around, planning to portray him as a visionary who could save the world.

And the reason you don’t hear cradle-to-cradle more often? Because McDonough’s company has the term trademarked, and they charge hefty fees for its use. According to the Fast Company article McDonough has been heard to say, ‘I want to be the Bill Gates of sustainability.’ The article makes the case that by this statement McDonough is not ju st referring to the way Gates is ubiquitous with computing, but also the way it has made him an icon. And rich.

To be sure, McDonough has brought attention to the Green Revolution and that is a good thing. He’s a charismatic speaker who leaves his audiences shining with hope. But he appears unwilling to open his tightly-controlled world up either to the rigorous scientific testing that refines and improves ideas like C2C (and keeps disasters like the city in China from happening), nor to the masses who would spread C2C around the world, but as a philosophy first and a marketing term second.

The article concludes with McDonough seeming to gain a sense of self-awareness. An acceptance that the way he has been trying to get things done for the last couple of decades is not working and may in fact be harming the overall movement. But whether that will be enough to convince him to change his ways will be up to him. Whether it will be too late for the rest of us to care will be up to us. Now that the Revolution seems to be gaining momentum, there will be new icons to take McDonough’s place.

The Revolution came about when people began to question the world as it was. The world that made toys with toxic chemicals, the world that burned or buried its trash, the world that puts profit ahead of basic human life. The Fast Company article serves as a stark reminder that we must continue to question everything. Especially those who would sell themselves as saviors.

opinion: carbon calculator, week 9

 

Week 9 in the continuing series of what is missing from Carbon Calculators.  

There is a list of the things that those calculators don’t ask, thereby eliminating them from their algorithm. These are the things that are sometimes the meat of the matter, so to speak. By altering these things, you could affect your true footprint in ways unimaginable and truly make our planet sustainable.

EATING MEAT

 

Earlier the number one easiest thing you could do to shrink your carbon footprint was alluded to… well, THIS IS IT.

Meat consumption plays a bigger role in greenhouse gas emissions than even many environmentalists realize. The production and transportation of meat and dairy, particularly if you include the grains that are fed to livestock, is much more energy-intensive than it is for plants. Animals, especially cattle, also release gases like methane and nitrous oxide that, pound for pound, are up to 30 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Internationally there is an additional cost to animal agriculture: massive deforestation to make land available for grazing, which releases greenhouse gases as the trees are burned and removes valuable foliage that absorbs carbon dioxide. As a result, according to a 2006 United Nations report, internationally the livestock sector accounts for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions — more than the transportation sector.

To summarize, in order to raise livestock you have to clear cut the area of trees, which are CO2 absorbers and must be taken into consideration when you map the footprint.  The animals are being fed a corn based diet, so all the damage done listed previosuly in the High Fructose Corn Syrup discussion, also has to be added into the footprint.  There are the transportation emissions.  The actual animal methane emissions, which is a more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2. Lastly, the meat is also making us fat.

Many people shun vegetarian diets because they view it from the terms of a 1960’s hippie. Getting over this stigma may be the thing that saves the world. Consumers may not have a choice about where a power plant will be built or the fact that they live in an area where they have to drive to work; but a consumer can make a choice about how much meat they eat. On study indicates that switching to a vegan diet can reduce carbon emissions by 6%.

are flowers green?

I have always wondered about the eco-friendliness, or lack thereof, of flowers.  And it seems like other people have as well.

In preparation for the onslaught of floral arrangements being sent and received, an author in the UK set out to find out.  Now, while her research has a focus on her country, I think we can safely make assumptions about the United States flower ‘consumption’.  We may even agree that our country creates an even larger footprint due to the larger population and our insane over consumerism.

First off, most of our flowers come from Kenya, where the average worker is female and earns about $2 a day.

 

She works long hours for wages that don’t offer a path out of poverty, risks exposure to harmful chemicals, and worries about her children’s education. What price does she pay for my Mother’s Day gift?

And then there are the environmental cost, where the greatest impact is seen in the water usage.  The lakes that provide the water for the 30 plus farms in Kenya, alone, also need to supply the people, animals, and other agriculture in the area.

 ”Every single big lake in Africa is in crisis,” she says. “Europe does wonderful work preserving its own water, but the way it’s doing that is to use other people’s water.” Add the water footprint to the carbon footprint, factor in the implications of chemical use on the farms and poor working conditions for workers, and it’s a wonder the flowers don’t wilt under the weight of all this worry.

As with many things, my recommendation is to ensure your flowers come from local growers.  Maybe even going so far as forgoing the roses and opting for a bunch of messy and out of control wildflowers.  

We need to be responsible for our choices.  Ask questions of your various purveyors and don’t buy what had to be shipped.  Tell your local florists that you won’t buy from them until they have more local choices.  Or, better yet, give a living gift… a big pot of something that can keep growing and growing and growing.

When you live a sustainable life and focus on making the best decisions for the planet, you have to consider every single move you make.  There are decisions that may make a bigger impact; your car or your food.  And there are decisions that may have a smaller impact but are equally a necessity.

 

opinion: green backs

By Matt DeNoto

What if doing the best thing for the environment also meant never having to pay income taxes again?

One of the major factors slowing down the Green Revolution is cost. New technologies, new infrastructure and new designs all cost money, even though they’re not (yet) commercially competitive. So where would the money come from?

Visionary book Natural Capitalism, by Amory & Hunter Lovins (co-founders of the Rocky Mountain Institute) and Paul Hawken, paints a picture of a world where doing the right thing is not only the most responsible choice, but it’s also the most economical. And it all rides on one simple fact that lawmakers everywhere should come to accept.

Taxes are a burden.

Like jury duty and voting, paying taxes has been pitched to us as a civic duty. But at the end of the day, no one looks at taxes that way. All we see is the money draining from our wallets. First through the deductions from our paychecks, and then again through sales tax when we go to buy anything. Come April, everyone in America does their best to pay as little in taxes as possible.

As it stands today, taxes appear to be punishment for doing exactly what we’re supposed to be doing – working hard and contributing to society. What if we took the negative connotations associated with taxes and used them to encourage more conscientious behavior?

The first step is doing away with all income taxes. The second step is reapplying those taxes to practices and materials that do harm to the community and the world. Under this scenario, when a contractor was shopping for windows for a new building, the most affordable windows would no longer be the ones made from the flimsiest material. Shoddily made windows don’t insulate well, and they would be taxed more heavily for it. Windows that do insulate well would be subject to less tax, thus helping make them more competitive. Recycled paper would be taxed at a lower rate than paper made from virgin pulp. Gasoline would be taxed at a higher rate than sustainable biofuels. Sustainable fish, sustainable wood, sustainable sources of heat, products made without toxic chemicals, all of these would become commercially viable options.

The really wonderful thing about this system is that it reinforces where responsibility truly lies, with the consumer. If a homeowner wants a certain brand of siding on his/her home that isn’t as environmentally friendly as a different brand, the homeowner knows s/he is paying the price for that choice.

Another benefit of the system is its flexibility. As consumers become more and more aware of their purchasing power, unsustainable products and practices will become uneconomical and go bankrupt. Now the government can redistribute the taxes in order to encourage even MORE sustainability.

It appears that the process may already be starting, albeit slowly and without much fanfare. Part of the recent stimulus plan passed by Congress is income tax cuts, which as President Obama has pointed out we can expect to see factored into our paychecks next month. The money for the tax cuts will come from the carbon ‘cap and trade’ plan that Obama is currently trying to get through Congress. The plan will most likely mean, as Republicans are quick to point out, that energy prices will rise. But it also means that we as consumers have more money in our pockets. It will be up to us whether we use that extra money to pay the higher energy prices, or put the money toward finding ways to cut our energy use altogether. It means that the choice most industries have made to pollute indiscriminately is one we will no longer have to carry on our backs.

So what do we do when the system is as sustainable as it can get, and there’s nothing left to tax?  I think that’s a problem our great-great-great-great-grandchildren will be happy to have.

finally, some sense

The six largest manufacturers of baby bottles have decided to stop making them with Bisphenol-A.

This comes on the heels of the House vote (76-21) to ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.  As well as the move by major retail chains (Babys’R'us and Target) to stop selling the products.

It should be noted that this is a voluntary move by the manufacturers.  However, and this is a big HOWEVER, they are NOT going to stop using BPA in products sold overseas.  

I don’t know about you, but I kind of read this like… Americans deserve to not be poisoned.  Foreigners, not so much.

Thoughts?

Top 10 Climate Deniers

As told by George Monbiot of the Guardian UK…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All images from the Guradian… check out the article for the other six!

ok, women. here’s one for you

So, I started looking at this article from Australia because of the relationship of climate change and over-population; things that I think are inextricably linked. 

However, when I got to the end of the very brief article, I was surprised by what Roger Short, a professor at University of Melbourne, had to say:

 

“Global warming is a direct result of human activity,” Professor Short told The Weekend Australian.

“The more people there are, the worse the global warming threat gets.

“So we have got to do everything we can to control human population growth.

“We haven’t given the women of the world freedom from the tyranny — and I do mean tyranny — of unwanted fertility.

“If we could restore that freedom to women, the world could breathe a lot easier and we could look forward to the future because women would sort out the future for us.”

So… I ask for your feedback.  Do you feel women of the world are trapped in a “tyranny” of unwanted fertility?  What do you think women would come up with that could change how our planets future is looking right now?  And, do you think he gave women a compliment, or do you think he created even more tyrannical rule by putting us to work fixing the problems that men have created?

Thoughts…. would LOVE to hear them.

 

And, for those who need the clarification, tyranny is defined:

cruel and oppressive government or rule : refugees who managed to escape Nazi tyranny | the removal of the regime may be the end of a tyranny.• a nation under such cruel and oppressive government.• cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control : she resentedhis rages and his tyranny | figurative the tyranny of the nine-to-five day | hisfather‘s tyrannies.• (esp. in ancient Greece) rule by one who has absolute power without legal right.

opinion: Selling the Revolution

by Matt DeNoto

If you’re reading this, I assume you’re sympathetic to the cause. Or you’re my mom. (Hi Mom!) You already understand that human actions are having effects on the planet’s climate. You know that we have been living in a wasteful, inconsiderate, destructive population for years now. You have seen that too often, money has taken precedence over responsibility. In other words, I’m mostly preaching to the converted here.

But how do we reach out to those who do not understand? How do we explain things in such a way that they become excited about getting involved in all the changes that will soon be taking place?

The first step of course is to consider their point of view. I’m going to overgeneralize here, so take it all with a grain of salt, but I think in many cases people hear about ‘saving the environment’ and they get the impression that we want to take away their cars, stop them from eating their favorite foods, and make them join hands around a campfire while singing ‘Kumbaya.’ And it scares them. They think we want to take away the things that make them happy, the things that make their lives easy. They have the mistaken impression that we won’t be happy until everybody is living in a hut with a dirt floor, wiping our butts with leaves.

The very simple idea that we should try and get across is that the Green Revolution is all about making their lives better.

For example, buying food and products generated locally not only cuts down on pollution (because if it’s made locally, it didn’t have to be shipped there by a giant, exhaust-spewing truck), it also keeps money in the community, as opposed to having it shipped off to some corporate headquarters. Plus the fewer trucks on the road, the less traffic you have to contend with.

An even more cut-and-dry example is this: If you live in an area that gets a lot of sun and were to install solar panels on your roof, not only would you get free electricity for your own home, you’d actually feed any extra power your panels generate back into the system, for which the power company PAYS YOU.

Another thing to remind them of is that they are already part of it. Over the last twenty years, refrigerators have done the same job using less than half the electricity. And the less energy their refrigerators use, the lower their energy bills are. The revolution has already been improving their lives without them even noticing.

I know thinking about it this way may upset some of those who think that more drastic, immediate change is necessary. People who think we have to stop producing harmful chemicals NOW and stop living off of fossil fuels NOW. I’m sympathetic to those points of view, but trying to shove ideas down the throats of people who can’t even bring themselves to use CFLs will simply engender more defensive suspicion and bitterness. By introducing small, demonstrable benefits to the masses it will be easier to help them start thinking more about the consequences of their actions and choices.

The more of us that care, the faster the revolution can go.

« Previous Page — Next Page »