I think we are so bombarded by extremes about religion that my opinions are justified. You hear much more about the religious fanatics starting a cult in Montana, Texas, or San Diego. So much so, that I might guarantee that this image evokes an emotion in you that might be negative.  However, it must be argued that the news rarely mentions the good news or the reasonable opinions of different sects.  

So, my admission is this… the Christian Science Monitor is a great periodical and has become a constant source of information for me.  Go to the wikipedia reference information, here, and you will see it was formed specifically to not evangelize and is not a religious themed newspaper.

There is no point in sharing this except I felt it was an elephant in the room that I had to address before continuing to link you all to articles I find useful.

So, now that that is out of the way… let’s discuss an article I happened upon.  It’s about overpopulation.

The author discusses the current articles being published about over-population and criticizes what has been said.  For one, he didn’t like this article, citing for example, that:

And if we’re to blame for the emissions of all of our progeny forever and ever, doesn’t blame equally fall upon our progenitors, going all the way back to a clump of self-replicating molecules some four billion years ago?

He also briefly mentions this article where there is a simple conclusion to over population: educating women.  And, if any of you have ever seen Idiocracy, the following argument sure rings true:

And is it really a wise strategy to deploy environmental stewardship to urge people to voluntarily stop having kids? Even if such a strategy worked (a big if), the only people to heed this advice be those who care about the environment, while those who don’t care about the environment would continue breeding as usual. Given that children generally tend to share the social beliefs of their parents, this starts to looks like a recipe for eliminating environmentalism from the gene pool.

And, so, like many of us he concludes that it is not so much over-population but what kind of people we consist of:

But in the end, it’s not really population itself that is inherently the problem. While there are no doubt physical limits to how many people can occupy the planet at one time, the real issue here is waste. If we continue with our current methods of production and consumption – extracting finite resources, rearranging their chemistry, and then dumping them into the sky, the sea, and the soil – then its almost inevitable that we will make the weather go all weird, poison our oceans, and consign our descendants to picking through our landfills.

1.) Pacific Walrus – Alaska
2.) Red Knot bird – Texas
3.) Wolverine – Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Washington
4.) Gunnison Sage-grouse (bird) – Colorado, Utah
5.) Fluvial Arctic Grayling (fish) – Montana
6.) Island Marble Butterfly – Washington
7.) Southern Rockies Boreal Toad – Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Idaho
8.) Mason’s Skypilot (plant) – California and Nevada
9.) Great White Shark – Coastal States
10.) Wood Turtle – Great Lakes and Northeastern States, Virginia and West Virginia

You can find all of their adorable pictures HERE.OK… so the plant picture may not be “adorable”, but you get the point.

California officials today unveiled a six-step strategy to promote use of safer, sustainable chemicals and wean the state’s industries and consumers off toxic compounds.

Twenty months in the works, the recommendations from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s staff are a mix of regulatory and voluntary strategies. State officials say it would be the most comprehensive program in the nation to push industries toward following the tenets of green chemistry.

Green chemistry alters how products are designed and manufactured by choosing compounds that do not produce hazardous waste. Of the 83,000 known chemicals, only a few hundred are considered green. Of the others, hundreds are harmful to humans and nature. And for a vast majority, the risks are still unknown.

You can read the full article HERE, which details the program.

More and more data is being released that we are in a much more severe crisis than originally thought and we are going to get much, much worse before we get better.

Kevin Anderson, from Exeter University, is one scientist that is making a very difficult presentation to his peers: despite the political rhetoric, the scientific warnings, the media headlines and the corporate promises, he would say, carbon emissions were soaring way out of control – far above even the bleak scenarios considered by last year’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern review. The battle against dangerous climate change had been lost, and the world needed to prepare for things to get very, very bad.

Many numbers are thrown around that may not make much sense: 280, 350, 450, 650. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the worlds CO2 level was at 280 parts per million. We are currently at 386ppm by most estimates. Why does this matter and what does it mean? The reason that carbon dioxide is considered the most important greenhouse gas is because it absorbs more infrared radiation on a per molecule basis than any other molecule in our atmosphere. So, as we put more in the air, through burning fossil fuels, we are putting a molecule into the air that traps and holds onto heat more than any other. Where once the presence of CO2 created a nice atmosphere for our species to flourish, because we were trapping an appropriate amount of heat from the sun, we are now creating an atmosphere in which we are over-heating. The more CO2, the more trapped heat. And with more heat comes the accumulation of the effects of having that heat present; warming temperatures leading to melting ice leading to raising sea levels, etc., etc. (It should also be noted that at a certain point, somewhere around 5% total CO2 in the atmosphere, humans are greatly impaired by our bodies ability to process the molecule.)

Now, the other aspect of CO2 that must be noted is its longevity in the atmosphere. CO2 has a half life on 10 years; or, if I put 100ppm in a container it takes 10 years for it to get to 50ppm and 20 years for it to be gone. Also, there is a cumulative affect to CO2. If I have that same container of 100pp and I add 50ppm one year and another 50ppm the next, I know have just shy of 200ppm. Even though two years have gone by, the removal of CO2 is at a much slower pace then the addition. (I’m sorry if this is so elementary, but it is really important for everyone to really understand what all these scientists have talked about). Going back to the topic, what we put into the atmosphere as CO2 in 1978 has finally gone as of today. We still have 1979 pollution in our air. Which means in 2028, we will have today’s CO2 still in the air. And every year, it accumulates on itself. What we do today, literally, affects the future, because it will still be around.

I hope that makes sense because I am going to go back to the latest research on this….

Many scientists feel that the global community needs to put a cap on allowable emissions so that our CO2 concentration never gets to 450ppm. What many are saying now is that is absolutely impossible because what we are putting into the atmosphere today, may already have us at that goal, when you consider the cumulative effect. The number that scientists have decided on (450ppm) is proportional to a 2C increase in temperature, which they feel is the highest we can go for a sustainable planet. The estimates now are that we may be able to cap at 650ppm, which is a 4C increase in temperature, which is an unsustainable level.

And even putting a cap on these emissions is a political hot topic when discussing compromise: Many small island states are predicted to be swamped by rising seas with global warming triggered by carbon levels as low as 400ppm. “It’s really difficult for countries to sign up to something that loses them half their territory. It’s not going to work.”

On top of that there is very early research that indicates that the ocean’s have stopped absorbing CO2. They have been a huge work horse in keeping CO2 levels in check. If they aren’t doing their job, we have no idea what that will translate too, regarding CO2 levels.

OK. So, this is all pretty bleak and literally makes you want to throw in the towel, take a 30 minute shower, turn on the heat, and use hair spray again. I know. I battle it everyday.

I have known the science for a while and have feared a negative outcome no matter what I might do. A while ago I was asked why I keep trying to educate people about this and if I felt it was a lost cause. The only way I could answer was “I don’t know, but if I had to, I was going to die trying.”

There are two interesting websites to go to for education on CO2. I recommend HERE, which is an article about what scientists are discovering. And HERE, which is a lesson in CO2.

The new 60,000-square-foot structure at Bob Hope Airport in Burbank is believed to be the industry’s only solar-powered airport hangar. Its rooftop photovoltaic panels provide enough juice to operate the building’s lights and to recharge electric-powered ground equipment such as forklifts and tow vehicles. The array can also keep an airplane’s electrical system humming inside the hangar while mechanics perform their chores.

Airlines are a leading cause of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere accounting for 12% of emissions from all U.S. transportation. While this hangar does little in terms of reducing airplane emissions, it is nice to see an airport trying to offset the damage done by its industry. Especially when you consider that buildings, and all things involved making a building, account for 33% of U.S. emissions.

All in all, it appears as though Los Angeles will be a leader in dictating how cities are becoming sustainable. You can read the whole article HERE, via the Los Angeles Times.

I hope to post later tonight with some of the news on the world, but during the day will be very light.

I am covering the Hollywood Goes Green conference for LAist.com and am unavailable all day long.

thanks for the understanding…

TREE PEOPLE

Well, all these trees are gone to make your Holiday cards and junk mail. So give the gift of a tree. Gifts start at $25 and increase from there. This is from their website:

Contributions made to the Gift of Life program provide funds to support TreePeople’s restoration efforts. This includes both planting and caring for trees, fostering a healthy natural environment surrounding Los Angeles. Due to the nature of our work, we do not have tags or plaques on each of the trees. Specific trees are not designated to specific dedications.

You can go to their website and make your purchase on line. Although, you can send to anyone you want, all around the country, trees will only be planted in Los Angeles. I’m sure with simple research you can find someone local to your area, if not in California. Or, contact TreePeople to see if they have partner organizations.

Go HERE for their donation page.

Methane was our second largest emission after carbon dioxide at 9.6% or 700 million metric tons. This was a 2% increase in our levels from last year. The reason for the increase: livestock enteric fermentation. Farts.

In other research released today, which many may not tie together, is the impact of livestock in climate change. The report suggests that eating a hamburger actually has a larger footprint than driving an SUV. It goes on to suggest that reducing your meat consumption can have a huge impact on climate change.

Of course, this is not being met on the friendliest terms. First off, in the United States, the meat industry is huge. It is primarily funded by government subsidies through the farm bill.

The average American eats 200 pounds of meat, poultry, and fish per capita per year, 50 pounds more than Americans did in the 1950s. Between 1970 and 2002 the average person in a developing country went from consuming 24 pounds to 65 pounds of meat annually. In all, the world’s total meat consumption in 2007 was estimated to be 284 million tons, compared to 71 million tons in 1961. It is expected to double by 2050.

Obviously, this is money they do not want to lose. However, the true cost may be more than we can afford.

Global warming is the single biggest threat to the health of the planet, and 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.

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%.

The next question is why are people not talking about it? In fact, Nobel Prize winning Al Gore has not once mentioned eating less meat as a valid way to reduce greenhouse gases. I think the primary reason why is the meat industry has its hands in many a politicians pocket. Even though the meat industry does not get direct funding from the Farm Bill, they are the benefactors of corn subsidies. Corn is a commodity crop and is the primary feed for our livestock. As a result, the return on investment is high; it is cheap to raise meat but the industry can charge astronomical prices.

Many environmental groups use the reasoning that they are trying to attack one emission at a time and are starting with carbon. The NRDC, Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters do not have an official policy on meat consumption. However, suggestions that been made that it is because they are just as political as other organizations and are doing more harm then good (see Green, Inc.: An Environmental Insider Reveals How a Good Cause Has Gone Bad). And, maybe there point is valid, since it takes longer to get carbon out of our atmosphere. However, many critics site that these organizations could make a blanket statement about meat consumption, effectively lowering one greenhouse gas, and still keep fighting for the worst offender, carbon.

All in all, it is ridiculous for a person to pull up to a McDonald’s in their Prius thinking they are helping the environment. Because, it is just not true. More and more people need to come out against eating meat. Take the time to educate your friends and neighbors about the true harm being inflicted by eating these animals.

Many articles have been published on this and I recommend that you go HERE for an in depth article by Ben Adler. HERE is an article from the New York Times about what it being discussed this week at the UN conference.