other ghg on the rise, more deadly

Carbon dioxide may be the least of our worries when it comes to greenhouse gases.  While it makes up over 70% of the GHG’s, it is the least harmful offender. Many studies are showing that more harmful gases are on the rise in the atmosphere, according to a report from Discover Magazine.

One such gas is Nitrogen Triflouride (NF3).  This is released in the production of microchips and flat screen televisions.  While it makes up a small percentage, by comparison, it is much more dangerous.  

This particular gas is increasingly being released by 11% each year.  It is 17,000 more times effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere and remains for 550 years.  In contrast, carbon dioxide has a half life of 20 years.

The other gas that is on the rise is methane.  This gas is released from landfills, melting glaciers and permafrost, and livestock flatulence.  More can be found about that by going to this article.

The point to reporting this is to understand and inform the public of new developments in climate science.

santa’s foreclosure

The arctic is melting faster than anyone expected. And, while scientists agree that summer ice will disappear, they cannot agree on when that will happen.

US researchers claim to have found evidence that accelerated melting has crossed a “tipping point” from which there is no going back.

The amount of summer ice at the North Pole has steadily declined since 1979, according to satellite images. Computer models predict that this trend will continue, leaving the Arctic completely ice-free during the summers as early as 2030.

Of the many issues that will arise with arctic melting, the one with the most concern is the subsequent release of methane gas. The problem at hand: methane has 21 times the warming power of carbon dioxide. And, while it has a half life that is shorter than CO2, the damage may well be greater. Because of its ability to trap heat, it has a greater impact for a small amount of time, compared to CO2′s lesser impact over a large amount of time.

In any case, the arctic melting cannot be good. Due to current conditions in the world, we have had a 150% increase in methane in the last 200 years and accounts for 20% of the mixed greenhouse gases.

Article is HERE. You can find out more information about methane, HERE.

to put it in simple terms: we breath animal farts

Earlier, I posted about the U.S. increase in greenhouse gases, however, I decided to leave methane for this discussion.

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.

hometown makes me happy

Wooooo Hooooo for Pasadena!

Seriously, this makes me so darn happy for my home town. Especially, since they are so bad in other legislative areas…. THIS is good news.

Pasadena Star News is reporting that their energy is going all green and stuff.

“The City Council voted Monday to sign a 20-year contract to buy an annual allotment of 30,000 megawatt hours of power generated by methane gas emitted by garbage decaying in the landfill. “

There is also THIS follow-up on the author’s blog.