Energy Saving Methods

Water Efficiency - The Resource Matrix Part 2 of 4 - Water’s Role in Global Warming

Last week, we introduced you to the Resource Matrix, which is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

We showed you how economics leads to people maximizing their benefits in “win-lose” propositions: you want diamonds and gold for nothing and they want to give you useless junk for a king’s ransom. And how we’ve been hypnotized in believing what they want is also what we want.

But the scales have been falling from our eyes, we’re beginning to see the truth, and the power has been shifting away from the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd:

• Do-gooders have increased our awareness and worked to change deals from “win-lose” to “win-win”
• There is no “free lunch:” finite energy resources will run out; actions have consequences, and the consequences of our actions are already visible, rather scary, and quite irreversible; and that the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd hasn’t been telling the truth

We now realize we’re all in this together: we have greater awareness of our actions and the desire to change, and have ways to change.

Hallelujah and Praise the Collective!

Today, we introduce the resource called water, its parallels with fossil fuels, and its role in global warming.

None of this is to dismiss or diminish the contribution of fossil fuels in global warming. Hey, just like the Special Olympics, if you participate, you get a medal. We just think that gold-medal winner Fossil Fuels has stolen the spotlight, letting silver-medalist Water Use keep us hypnotized in believing that water is a free lunch, and that nature will clear up polluted waters while getting away with breaking the rules.

Water, water, everywhere,
not a drop to drink.

According to our friends at How Stuff Works, who I wrote about sarcastically for their oxymoronic clean coal article in discussing how true public relations stuff really works, gives us this data:

• 98% of the planet’s water is in the oceans. It’s salt water - we can’t drink it or irrigate our crops with it.
• 2% is usable. Of that 2%:
  • 80% is locked up in polar ice caps and glaciers
  • 18% is underground in aquifers and wells
  • 1.8% is in lakes and rivers
  • 0.2% is elsewhere: either floating in the air as clouds and water vapor, locked up in plants and animals (and your body), and in foods and beverages.

Okay, so 20% of the usable water (only 0.4% of all water on Earth) is accessible, right?

Well . . . no. Many of the aquifers, wells, lakes, and rivers have been sucked dry like a once-juicy fly carcass in a spider’s web. (The 18% and 1.8% you see above is like the money in the Social Security Fund: there actually is nothing there.)

And many of those water sources that do still have a drop to drink are worse than the ocean’s salt water. Drink salt water and you’ll need to yawn into a bucket. Drink this water and you’ll kick the bucket.

And I know you aren’t asking this burning question:

“So . . . global warming to release fresh water from ice caps and glaciers is a good thing, no?”

Percentage this, percentage that.
Talk my language, will you?

I know I’m pulling the disgusting old government trick: drowning you in an ocean of water statistics.

So let’s make it plain and simple:

You bring in $10,000 a month. You’re also living high on the hog and doing your personal best to outshine every bling-bling Hip Hopster Musical Artist in materially conspicuous consumption:

• $9800 goes to the McMansion mortgage and gold-plated Rolls Royce lease
• $160.00 goes to investments in clothing and accessories
• $0.40 has been lost in the sofa cushions
• $39.60 a month is for everything else: food, phone and electric bills, income taxes, and all the other non-essentials: Don’t spend it all in one place!

Aquifers and wells and lakes and rivers:
Dry or polluted, oh my!

Fred Pearce, author of When the Rivers Run Dry, helps us quickly understand it:

We can all save water in the home. But as laudable as it is to take a shower rather than a bath and turn off the faucet while brushing our teeth, we shouldn’t get hold of the idea that regular domestic water use is what is really emptying the world’s rivers. Manufacturing goods … consumes a certain amount, but that’s not the real story either. It is only when we add in the water needed to grow what we eat and drink that the numbers really begin to soar. (emphasis mine.) (Fred Pearce, When the Rivers Run Dry, Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. p 3)

Here are a few numbers he gives:

• to grow a pound of rice: 250 to 650 gallons of water
• to grow a pound of wheat: 130 gallons
• to produce a quart of milk: 500 to 1000 gallons
• to produce a pound of cheese: 650 gallons
• to produce a 1/4 pound of burger: 3000 gallons

He kindly puts water use into perspective in annual terms:

• 1 ton (265 gallons) for drinking
• 50 to 100 tons (13,250 to 26,500 gallons) around the house
• 1500 to 2000 tons (397,500 to 530,000 gallons) for food and clothing

—————————————–

sidebar:
How Many Gallons to Produce One Pound of Beef?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics

US Beef industry’s Cattlemen’s Association: 441 gallons
Fred Pearce: 12,000 gallons
Water Footprint Network: 1854 gallons (calculations: 15500 litres of water per kg; 4079 gallons per kg; 1854 gallons per pound)

In an industrial beef production system, it takes an average three years before the animal is slaughtered to produce about 200 kg of boneless beef.

The animal consumes nearly 1300 kg of grains (wheat, oats, barley, corn, dry peas, soybean meal and other small grains), 7200 kg of roughages (pasture, dry hay, silage and other roughages), 24 cubic meter of water for drinking and 7 cubic meter of water for servicing.

This means that to produce one kilogram of boneless beef, we use about 6.5 kg of grain, 36 kg of roughages, and 155 litres of water (only for drinking and servicing).

Producing the volume of feed requires about 15300 litres of water on average.

—————————————–

Where does all that water come from?
From virtually everywhere

If it comes from imported goods (Thai rice or Egyptian cotton), the water comes from those countries.

When the water is collected from rivers or pumped from underground, as it is in much of the world, it’s:

• increasingly expensive
• increasingly likely to deprive someone of water (nothing to drink)
• increasingly likely to empty rivers and underground water reserves

And when the rivers are running low, as they are more frequently, there is less water to grow anything at all.

The water used in growing and producing goods around the world is known as “virtual water” and the trade of these goods is known as “virtual water transfers.”

And who’s the biggest water exporting Mouseketeer of them all? The United States.

When you drink coffee from Central America, you are influencing the hydrology of the region, virtually taking a share of the Costa Rican rains. The same is true within a national and regional boundaries. The Colorado River is drained so Californians can eat their Big Macs and have friends over for a Sunday afternoon barbecue.

In the same way that your use of fossil fuel is measured as a “carbon footprint,” your water use, actual and through virtual water transfer, is measured as a “water footprint.”

How big is my water footprint?
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours

Arjen Y. Hoekstra, professor at the University of Twente, the Netherlands, introduced the water-footprint concept in 2002. It “shows water use related to consumption within a nation, while the traditional indicator shows water use in relation to production within a nation.” (Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008, p. 3)

With Hoekstra and Chapagain’s water footprint calculator (waterfootprint.org), you select your country, input food, domestic water use, and industrial goods consumption, press a button, and you get your:

• total water footprint for the year
• bar charts for the three components
• bar charts for individual food categories

For example, you’re in the US, eat only 1 pound of cereal a week (.4545 kg) and have a low-fat, low-sugar diet, use a low-flow showerhead, use a no-flush eco-toilet, and never run the tap while brushing your teeth. Two extremes:

• You’re the hippiest of the hip: making $10,000 a year: Your water footprint: 245 cubic meters (65,170 gallons)
• You’re the hippiest of the Yuppies: making $120,000: Your water footprint: 2979 cubic meters (792,414 gallons). Difference due to your income’s effect on industrial production.

Three notes on the calculations, because Professor Hoekstra is European and lives in the social welfare country that started birthing hippies in Amsterdam decades before they showed up in the US at Woodstock:

1. You input kilograms for food:
   • 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds = 35.2 ounces
   • 1 ounce = 0.028 kilograms. 1 pound = 0.454545 kilograms
2. Your water footprint is in cubic meters per year:
   • 1 cubic meter = 35.3 cubic feet = 266 gallons
3. The higher your income, the greater your water footprint, even if you don’t personally consume anything: you’re a capitalist pig supporting the Establishment Regime, I guess

So how is Cinnamon’s capitalist water footprint? Answer: 650 cubic meters (172,900 gallons)

I showed you mine. Now you show me yours:

Get the naked truth: Calculate your waterfootprint now:

Water’s running out:
I get the fossil fuel analogy so far.
And what about climate change?

We return to Fred Pearce’s book to find an example, of which he has oceans:

China’s Yellow River: The fifth longest in the world, it begins high in the mountains of eastern Tibet and journeys more than 3000 miles. Almost half a billion people depend on it for drinking and crop irrigation, and it’s made China the world’s largest wheat producer and second largest corn producer. Yet more than half of the lakes it feeds have disappeared over the last 20 years, and a third of pastures have turned to desert. This desertification generates huge dust storms that choke lungs in Beijing, close schools in Koreas, dust cars in Japan, and rain dust on mountains across the Pacific and Western Canada.

State irrigation projects along the Yellow River soak up the majority of its water - the total official allocations are greater than the actual flow.

The resulting drought could be an early warning sign of global warming.

Much of the declines in moisture reaching rivers is in line with prediction of climate researchers. So how does this global warming happen?

Higher air temperatures from desertification increase evaporation from oceans and intensify the water cycle. This increases atmospheric water vapor - 8 to 10% more than today. This increases global rainfall, but the rain is being redistributed: middle latitudes (read: the US) are becoming drier. Higher temperatures increase evaporation on land, meaning soil dries out faster, meaning less rainfall is reaching rivers.

The higher temperatures melt glaciers and snowpacks. At first, this leads to unpredecented floods. After the glaciers disappear, meltwaters that feed rivers disappear. The combined decreasing rainfall and increasing evaporation will lower moisture by 40% in the southern and western states.

The Sierra Nevada snowpack could diminish by 70 to 80 percent over the next 50 years. And some of the world’s most productive agricultural regions could dry up.

Global climate is becoming more extreme: the dry areas become drier, and the wet areas become wetter. And more areas are becoming dry deserts. Loss of habitat and agricultural lands. It’s a vicious cycle.

So what can you do?
Navigating through the Resource Matrix

As Fred Pearce points out, your drinking and bathing account for 0.05% of your total water consumption. Your food and clothing weigh in at 95.00%, although I find his 12,000 gallons needed to produce a pound of burger rather wild.

As Professor Arjen Y. Joekstra shows with his Water Footprint Calculator, your consumption of meats accounts for a lot, as does your guilt by association of being in an industrialized country.

The obvious solution: eat fewer e-coli burgers from your neighborhood Salt and Fat Slop Bucket restaurant.

The wiser solution: like your choices in energy use, become more aware of the resources needed to produce anything and the consequences. Such as luxurious cotton grown in the Egyptian desert.

Next article in the water efficiency series:
How an illiterate, lice-infested, foul-mouthed
peasant on some other side of the globe affects you

We continue going with the flow of water, when we show the parallel between the current hot Oil Wars and in the future cold Water Wars.

And all of this is for one purpose:

To help you see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you.

Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .

To your green, brighter future,

Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19

And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.

You can access it now by going to: http://www.a19.com/pub/articles/

From Cinnamon Alvarez: Founder, A19 — woman-owned green manufacturer of hand-made ceramic lighting fixtures

BBC World News America

Albuquerque Gives New Mexico Its First Solar-powered Farmer's …

Eco Factor: New farmer’s market will look at mobile solar power unit for power. In an attempt to power farmer’s market with clean energy and…

YouTube - KQED Climate Watch: Solar-Thermal Energy

A Gigantic Solar-Thermal Plant - East of Plaster City, CA Stirling Energys Kevin Harper takes you to the future site of his companys enormous solar-thermal pl…

Re-evaluating Solar Prospects for 2010 (FSLR, CSIQ, YGE, TSL, SOLF …

After initiating coverage on a eight solar stocks just over a month ago, Auriga Securities has now adjusting its estimates as a result of the falling Euro. The eight companies it is covering include First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ:FSLR), …

Abound Solar announces the Abound Alliance - Photovoltaics …

In an effort to create a more level playing field for the cost of PV electricity, Abound Solar has partnered with market leaders to create the Abound Alliance. The goal for the program is to allow each company to coordinate their …

Tax Breaks for Solar Companies Could Create 200000 US Jobs …

A new report just released by the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) shows that extending the Treasury Grant Program (TGP) by two years, combined with new tax breaks for equipment manufacturers, would increase investement in the …

Cheap Flights and Climate Change

What can be done about this increasingly worrying contribution to global warming?

The most important options to reduce aircraft CO2 emissions are:

Changes in aircraft and engine technology; use of alternative fuels, such as (sustainably produced) biofuels; regulatory and operational measures such as improvements in air traffic management; economic measures such as inclusion of aircraft emissions in emission trading schemes.

But, as Giovanni Bisignani, manager of International Air Transport Association (IATA), stated: “Emissions trading schemes only make sense with efficient infrastructure. The IPCC estimates that there is 12% inefficiency in air traffic management globally: we produce up to 73 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year by aircraft flying inefficiently due to air traffic management limitations”. **

On a personal level we could ask ourselves especially in the developed world: “Do we really need to fly so frequently?” The use of telework, teleconference and video conference could be largely increased to plan work and meetings. Can’t the development of land and air transportation infrastructures be balanced better according to the real needs of people and businesses? Trains could connect cities better and more cheaply for example in Europe, where the prices are not competitive with those of many flights anymore (and night train services have been reduced if not cancelled).

Life styles do matter because if millions of people want to have cheap weekends in relatively close tourist locations, many flights are needed to satisfy their desires and consequently a lot of pollution is generated. Also, our per capita emissions could be cut also by reducing the “surplus” trips, by slowing down our life rhythms and enjoying more local attractions in our free time. Who knows? We could discover the “exotic” in our own neighborhoods without flying to the Caribbean Sea…

Furthermore the relationship between the costs and the environmental externalities (i.e. costs not included in the economy like health damages caused by pollution) needs to be considered as well: there are higher marginal impacts for short-distance flights that should be considered in prices paid by passengers.

All these political, technological and personal choices are some of the good examples needed by the developing countries to follow the 21st century’s Western society along a new sustainable path which looks like the only good alternative forward.

**”Talks to reduce aircraft global-warming emissions

For further information on Climate Change please visit the Responding to Climate Change website - http://www.rtcc.org

Technologies For New energy

What We Can All Do ?

Saving the rainforests and environment is not an easy task. It took many years of neglect, mainly on our part, in keeping the environment clean. We polluted our air and our water through chemicals and different types of bacteria and debris. We used paper products that were not recyclable and or were not biodegradable.

Rome wasn’t built in a day as the old cliche states, but we managed to ruin our planet over the years and unfortunately it will take longer than a day to rid the Earth of all the garbage we have dumped on it. It is so easy to throw a piece of paper out of your car window, instead of finding a receptacle to dispose of it, or to throw empty cans in with your regular garbage instead of separating them for the recycle pickup or to bring bottles back to the store. Let’s not forget the broken down refrigerators, t.v.s, mattresses, etc on the side of the road.

I have traveled to third world countries and it breaks my heart to see that. They have no means of garbage disposal and they certainly don’t know how to recycle. Most of the people, although poor, take pride and keep their properties neat and debris free, others do not care. The same goes for people who live here on Earth. Some are proud of what they own and others could care less.

By the inch it’s a cinch, by the yard it’s hard. If we all do our part in what ever little way, we can help improve Mother Earth and make it liveable for generations to come. Let’s start by picking up our litter, don’t let the water run when brushing your teeth, use rags instead of paper towels, carpool if you can, don’t discard items on the side of the road to make it look unsightly, but for the most part…. Be Proud Of Where You Live and What You Have!!!!!!

“Nothing Leaves An Impression Like A Lasting One”….

http://www.impressionsbyjackie.com

Green Technology

Online News Video Of A “green” fleet

Yahoo Vs Google - Who’s Greener?

Silicon Valley is known for both innovation and hype. Recently, this pool of innovation has extended beyond bandwidth to the protection the environment. Google and Yahoo, the search engine giants, are both headquartered in the Valley and have been making headlines by greening their offices, reducing energy consumption, and carbon trading. The PR motivations are obvious, but are the green benefits really there? To set apart the hype from reality, we have analyzed the green value of both Google and Yahoo’s headquarter facilities.

We looked at the ecological services provided by green landscape features such as trees and open space (i.e. grass). Grass and trees are pervious surfaces, meaning they allow water to permeate into the ground. Roofs, sidewalks, patios, and asphalt parking lots are examples of impervious surfaces, where rainwater drains into the public storm drains. Heavy metals, oil, and other pollutants are carried off parking lots in rainwater, which often lead directly to open water habitats, where fish, birds, and reptiles live.

In terms of ecological services, trees and grass have been proven to:

1.      Remove and store carbon from the atmosphere,

2.      Remove certain airborne pollutants,

3.      Permits rainwater to seep into the ground as opposed to draining into the stormdrains, and

4.      Remove certain waterborne pollutants.

Here is a look at how green Google and Yahoo really are and how the measure up against each other.

Google Green Report
Google’s headquarters, the Googleplex, covers 44 acres, nearly 50% of which is grass or tree canopy. This is an impressive paved to open space ratio. The grass and trees on the Googleplex remove roughly 2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.04 tons per year per acre. In addition, 530 lbs. of air pollution are removed per year (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter), or 12 lbs. per year per acre. It was assumed that the parking lot of the Googleplex is asphalt, and not a type of porous pavement, so the cost of managing rainfall runoff from the Googleplex is $4,474 per year, or $103 per year per acre. The abundance of grass and tree canopy on the Googleplex go a long way to offset the water quality impacts of the paved surfaces (mainly the parking lot). On average, the grass and trees reduce water pollution by 6%, as opposed to the entire property being paved.

Yahoo Green Report
The Yahoo headquarters, Yahooplex, covers 28 acres, a third of which is grass or tree canopy. This is a classic ratio of paved to open space for large office complexes in California. So far, par for the course. The Yahooplex removes 0.36 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.01 tons per year per acre. 114 lbs. of air pollutants are removed per year, or 4 lbs. per year per acre. In terms of rainfall, the cost associated with runoff is $9,219 per year, or $331 per year per acre. The grass and tree canopy help offset the paved areas with a 2.3% reduction in water pollution as opposed to the entire property being paved.

The final green analysis?

Google kicks Yahoo’s butt, largely due to the forethought, or luxury, of the Googleplex having 50% of its property surface providing green services. The good news for both Google and Yahoo is that over time, as trees grow, so will the tree’s canopy and mass, thus storing more carbon and removing more air pollutants.

Green next steps for both Google and Yahoo is to:
 

1. Install porous parking surfaces, allowing up to 80% of rainwater to seep into the ground,
2. Install green roofs, absorbing rainwater while reducing cooling costs and energy consumption, and
3. Planting larger trees on the south and west sides of the buildings to reduce cooling costs and energy consumption.

While we crunched the hard numbers to settle the Google vs. Yahoo green debate, this report illuminates the great opportunity that awaits these two Silicon Valley giants to harness the ecological services of green surfaces.

Chris Erichsen is a GIS Mapping consultant with the Erichsen Group, GIS and Mapping in northern California. He has over 10 yrs of GIS experience and helps many industries around the world apply GIS mapping technology. Learn more examples of GIS mapping capabilities.

The Canada Pine Beetle

For some time now, the extremely destructive Pine Beetle ( Dendroctonus ponderosae ) is ravaging huge areas of Canada’s forestlands and its destruction is so virulent, that it is leaving massive and easily visible scars across otherwise green foliage landscapes. In numerous areas where the pine beetle is active, various solutions for its eradication have been tried and some of these in themselves, are so toxic in nature that they would normally be classed as being a larger risk than the beetle they are attempting to destroy.

These beetles have an average life span of about one year and generally, their eggs are laid through the bark of a tree where they develop into larvae that stay under the bark all through the winter months. During the spring the larvae continue to feed under the bark and then they will change into pupae during the months of June and July. During the rest of the summer and into fall, the new adult pine beetles leave the infested tree through emergence holes they create and after drying themselves in the warm sunshine, they take off to mate and commence a new cycle by laying the next generation’s eggs under the bark of new trees. 

During the time they remain under the bark of a tree, they are known to transmit a fungus type substance that stains the sapwood of the tree a blue colour. Other than discoloration, this blue colouring appears to have no adverse affects on the actual structural integrity of the tree. However, we must not forget that the damage has already been done and like a rolling snowball, it gather momentum and range of spread with each summer that comes. These beetles prefer mature trees such as lodge pole pines which are considered mature after eighty years of growth and in the Province of British Columbia, current statistics show that there are three times more mature lodge pole pines than they had over ninety years ago. Hot and dry summers make the trees more stressed and thus more susceptible to attack and infestation by this ravenous little creature. Trees which have been attacked will turn red roughly one year after the infestation and then, between one and two years later the affected trees will turn grey and all of their needles will fall off.

Another interesting fact about these little guys is they do not like it too cold! Their eggs, larvae and pupae are very susceptible to very cold temperatures and if these temperatures remain below minus 35 Celsius for a prolonged period of maybe a week, then this will kill off the eggs, larvae, pupae and generally sizeable portions of the beetle population in that area of cold weather. This being said, unless we suddenly enter the start of a new ice age all across Canada, these sporadic cold spells are unfortunately not enough to rid us of this continually spreading plague of destruction.   Yes, there are action plans prepared and in place and yes, the Canadian Ministry of Forests and Range are really trying to get to grips with finding a solution to this costly problem but to date, the efforts and methodology being used has had little or no effect on the overall problem.

The good news is that an answer to this massive problem does exist and better still, it is an answer, which consists of no chemicals, no toxins, no poisons and no danger to either the forest or to the people who would apply the solution. This answer can be found right now in the form of a golden all natural organic fluid formulated around a cedar oil base. This fluid can totally eradicate the pine beetle and a few other nasty insects at the same time. It is not cheap but then again it is not as expensive as some of the other treatment that have been tried. It is non hazardous and will not harm the environment in any way and it is here and available right now. Unfortunately, for now it appears that here it must stay as the Ministry of Forests and Range are continuing their quest with what they feel they know best. Maybe someday, hopefully soon, they will realize that we can defeat this natural pest by using a totally natural substance.

Bob Littlejohn MBA BSc

Green Roof

To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?

Sometimes, simple acts such as going to the grocery store can turn into a moral dilemma. Is it better to choose the piece of organic fruit produced on the other side of the country or the non-organic version grown locally, 50 miles away? Are the benefits of chemical-free shampoo worth an extra 5 bucks a bottle? Will I really be able to enjoy a cheap chocolate bar knowing that the growers of the cocoa beans were likely not fairly compensated?

As much as I’d like to say that I always buy the product that is environmentally safe and sustainably produced, in reality, that’s not always the case. First, the sheer amount of information required to be able to distinguish between products is staggering. You need facts regarding environmental impact, transportation costs, and fair trade practices, to name just a few. And there are plenty of misinformation and greenwashing campaigns out there to steer you in the wrong direction.

Second, of course, there are times when the high cost of an ethically made product turns me off from buying it. Even consumers with the best of intentions have their breaking points.

The thing is, companies who go out of their way to implement sustainable practices endure a greater cost of production. Sure, they can sometimes capitalize on this by marketing to conscientious consumers who are willing to pay a bit more, but the fact remains that in today’s system, environmentally minded production is punished.

On the other hand, companies who move their factories (and jobs) to developing countries with lax environmental standards and cheap labor are able to make products at a fraction of the cost and undercut their competitors (while shipping materials and finished goods all around the world and adding to our greenhouse gas problems).

The way it’s set up, high environmental standards in one country drive companies to relocate in places where it’s permissible to pollute in order to compete in the marketplace. Chaco, the Colorado-based athletic sandal company, is a prime example of even a well-intentioned company being forced to follow suit to maintain competitive pricing on their products. In fact, 95% of all footwear in the world is produced in China, whose poor environmental regulation and sometimes dangerous environmental problems are well known.

With current talk about cap and trade emissions programs, this phenomenon may only get worse.

So how do we even the playing field and reward companies for good business practices?

When I think about this problem, I keep coming back to an idea I encountered in a casual conversation with a stranger while traveling. I can’t remember his face or his name, but his idea has stuck with me and festered in my mind for the better part of a year. His take was that putting the financial burden of environmental responsibility on the companies just doesn’t make sense for the reasons I’ve given above. In a global marketplace, it renders companies less competitive than those that operate free of environmental and labor regulations.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to put an “environmental impact” or “ecological footprint” tax on the product itself?

Ugh, a tax?

Initially, I didn’t warm to the idea either. But think about it: adding a tax proportionate to a product’s ecological and social footprint eliminates the cost advantage of irresponsible production. All those environmental costs that are currently not included in our economic system would be factored in and would increase the price of unsustainably made products.

This, in turn, would make moral dilemmas at the grocery store much easier. Is it more sustainable to buy distant, organic produce or local, non-organic produce? The tax-adjusted pricing should inform my decision. Can I afford the chemical-free shampoo? Yes, because the price of its chemical-laden competitors would be raised through the environmental impact tax and eliminate the cost advantage of choosing that product.

The money raised from the tax could fund its implementation and other sustainable programs such as public transportation (high speed rail, anyone?) and alternative energy. Perhaps it could even make a dent in our gaping budget deficit.

Won’t this cost me money?

You may be thinking, “Sure, that’s a good idea in concept, but that will raise my bills - grocery, clothes, everything.” Well, yes, that’s true. But maybe if we see the true cost of the products we casually consume, we can make a more informed decision about what is really necessary to our lives.

Additionally, programs such as this often have the greatest impact on the poor. But this could be compensated for by using some of the tax revenue for need-based assistance programs.

Regardless, running an economic system on the assumption of infinite resources is fundamentally flawed. Currently, environmental impacts such as air pollution, water pollution, and deforestation are not factored into the cost of a product: they are considered “externalities.”

These costs need to be included in the system in a way that does not punish those who engage in sustainable business practices. By taxing a product’s environmental impact, it levels the playing field for the consumer.

Disclaimer

Of course, I am not an economist or policy guru. I don’t know how to implement such a tax or if it would even be possible (though compared to creating a carbon trading market, perhaps it’s not that difficult). This is only the musing of a concerned, intelligent citizen trying to brainstorm ways to make our economic system fit within the bounds of our ecological constraints.

What do you think? Would such a tax have a beneficial effect on our production system? Join the conversation over at our website!

Jill Mueller is a conservation biologist, avid cyclist, and freelance writer. She has combined forces with a good friend and dietitian to start The Barefoot Badger, a blog promoting healthy, sustainable living. Check us out!

Solar Energy Facts For Kids In New Zealand | Antarctica

Solar energy facts for kids in New Zealand are considered unnecessary by some. When winter hovers over New Zealand, it may seem that day after.

greenHILLhome: Solar Panels Investigated, Part 1

One of the â??bigger stepsâ? and certainly a financial commitment we have started looking into is how to generate electricity on-site, and the most effective way currently available to do that is through solar power and the use of …

Top Utilities Added 66% More Solar in 2009 - Renewable Energy Hub …

Despite the overall reduction in US electricity demand in 2009 â?? due to both the recession and to an increase in efficiency technology deployment; the top ten utilities in the nation added 66% more solar to the grid last year than the …

PV Solar (Off-Grid) | My Efficient Planet

Mikey Sklar explains how Holy Scrap Hot Springs produces their own power with a 2kW PV Solar (Off-Grid) setup. Solar Water.

Evergreen Solar debuts rugged 'String Ribbon' solar panels for …

Evergreen Solar on Wednesday introduced a new, rugged kind of â??String Ribbonâ? ES-A solar panel at the Genera Solar Show in Madrid, Spain.

Water Efficiency

In my four-article series on water use (The Resource Matrix), I took you on a journey to reveal the layers of The Resource Matrix in order to help you understand how water will be a highly contested commodity tomorrow, possibly as much as oil is fought over today.

You learned about your water footprint and a website where you can calculate it, virtual water and virtual water transfers, whereby choices here affect water availability elsewhere, to the point of some people not having enough water to drink in order to produce inexpensive dyed cotton, along with insane choices such as growing crops in the desert.

You learned that on average it takes 1854 to 3000 gallons to produce one pound of beef.

Yep, it’s it’s been a great journey through the sidetrip city of the Resource Matrix.

Today, we’ve found the on-ramp to the Green Lighting Interstate and are driving to take a look at water use in generating electricity.

For a simple reason. It takes a lot of water to produce electricity.

How much? 5% of all US water? 10%? Can’t be as high as 25%?

Electricity and water?

I thought the issue was fossil fuels and greenhouse gases

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated water use in the United States in 2000.

Their grand total: 408 billion gallons per day withdrawn for all uses.

The number 1 spot, weighing in at 48%, was thermoelectric power.

Irrigation earned the runner-up prize at 34%.

The 195 billion gallons need to come from somewhere, and actions have consequences. Environmental ones, as in 40 million fish in the Great Lakes killed each year due to being trapped against water intake devices. That’s a lot of Friday night fish dinners.

How much water is used in generating electricity?

Large fossil fuel and nuclear plants require incredible quantities of water for cooling and ongoing maintenance.

Water for thermoelectric power is used in generating electricity with steam-driven turbine generators. It uses 48% of all water in the US.

According to the Pace Energy and Climate Center, the amount of water used for power plant cooling varies by each specific power plant’s electricity generating technology and size. Nuclear reactors require the most water for cooling, and baseload fossil fuel power plants come in second.

The Salem Nuclear Generating Station alone takes 3 billion gallons a day from the Delaware Bay, according to the Pace Energy and Climate Center.

Nationally:

• Steam electric generating plants across the nation draw in more than 200 billion gallons per day.
• Nuclear and fossil fuel power plants drink over 185 billion gallons of water per day.
• Geothermal power plants add another 2 billion or so gallons a day.
• Most renewable energy technologies require little or no water for cooling.

These numbers are starting to sound like the same ones the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank use.

Imagine watching your favorite science program where astronomers explain that the universe is 78 billion light-years wide (78 billion units of 5,878,630,000,000 miles). There is absolutely nothing in our experience to help us wrap our mind around it.

How much is 3 billion gallons per day?

The Delaware Bay feeds Salem Nuclear Generating Station 3 billion gallons a day.

Imagine this rectangle: a football field with end zones (360 feet long x 160 feet wide). Then add to it walls on each side of the rectangle to create a container to hold the 3 billion gallons you pour into it.

How high do you need to make those walls to contain 3 billion gallons? 6915 feet high. Or 1.3 miles.

Maybe 6915 feet high is still hard to imagine. So how deep do you cover the field in order to feed the Salem plant every minute? Answer: 5 feet deep. Every minute.

48% of all water use: We’re Number One!

How much is 195 billion gallons per day?

Using the USGS figure for 2000, thermoelectric power nationwide used 195 billion gallons a day, or 48% of all water used in the US. My guess is the water use has grown since then.

How high are the walls on our football field now? 449,475 feet or 85 miles high. We’re back to US Treasury and astronomy numbers again.

So, let’s get a higher-level view to help us.

Lake Erie holds 116 cubic miles of water.

Nationally, thermoelectric power uses 195 billion gallons a day - or 64.2 cubic miles a year.

We drain Lake Erie every 22 months.

But the water used is returned to its source.

So what’s the issue about water use?

Power generation returns 98% of the water back to its source (bay, lake, river, ocean).

It’s the environmental consequences.

The Pace Energy and Climate Center explains it neatly:

Withdrawal of large volumes of surface water for either power plant cooling or hydropower generation can kill fish, larvae and other organisms trapped against intake structures (impinged), or swept up (entrained) in the flow through the different sections of a power plant.

Examples include:

• The Salem Nuclear Generating Station is responsible for an annual 11 percent reduction in weakfish and 31 percent reduction in bay anchovy.
• At the Indian Point 2 and 3 reactors on the Hudson River, the number of fish impinged totaled over 1.5 million fish in 1987.
• The 90 power plants using once-through-cooling on the Great Lakes kill in excess of 40 million fish per year due to impingement. (Once-through cooling needs a continual flow of new water, and uses 30 to 50 times that of a closed cycle system. Closed cycles cool down water from steam then reuse it.)

The diversion of water out of the river removes water for healthy in-stream ecosystems:

• Stretches below dams are often completely de-watered.
• Fluctuations in water flow from peaking operations create a “tidal effect,” disrupting the downstream riparian community that supports its unique ecosystem.
• A dam’s impoundment slows water flows, which hinders natural downstream migration of many fish species.
• By slowing river flows, dams also allow silt to collect on river and reservoir bottoms and bury fish spawning habitat. Silt trapped above dams accumulates heavy metals and other pollutants. Disrupting the natural flow of sediments in rivers also leads to erosion of riverbeds downstream of the dam and increases risks of floods.
• The impoundment of water by hydropower facilities fundamentally reshapes the physical habitat from a riverine to an artificial pond community.
• This often eliminates native populations of fish and other wildlife.
• Dams also impede the upstream and downstream movement of fish and other wildlife, and prevent the flow of plants and nutrients. This impact is most significant on migratory fish, which are born in the river and must migrate downstream early in life to the ocean and then migrate upstream again to lay their eggs (or “spawn”).
• As mentioned above, withdrawal of water into turbines can also impinge or entrain significant numbers of fish.

The cleanest kilowatt is the one never used:

Back to those compact fluorescent lamps and LEDs

PowerScorecard.org explains the solution:

By re-directing electricity dollars to support environmentally benign energy resources, consumers are empowered, in states that offer supply choice, to influence the existing generating resources that are deployed to meet demand.

They can also support the construction of new and cleaner electricity resources that will be built to meet overall growth in demand in the future. By supporting these power options, consumers can minimize many water use and consumption impacts. Still, directing your dollars to cleaner power products in no way helps remediate damages that already have occurred. Consumers can stop the construction of new hydropower facilities or alter conditions of siting and operation, but they cannot undo previous environmental degradation that occurred at existing hydropower facilities.

In short, reduce your use of electricity.

More Info:

We used several sources for this article, including the PowerScorecard.org website, which is produced by the Pace Energy and Climate Center, which is part of the Pace University School of Law’s Center for Environmental Legal Studies, Pace University, White Plains, New York.

On PowerScorecard, you can get:

• Ratings of Electric Power Choices for some service areas.
• More info on electricity and the environment:
  • Technologies
  • Climate change
  • Acid rain
  • Ozone depletion
  • Water use (our article today)
  • Water quality
  • Land: on-site and off-site impacts

Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .

To your green, brighter future,

Cinnamon Alvarez,

A19

And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.

You can access it now by going to: http://www.a19.com/pub/articles/

From Cinnamon Alvarez: Founder, A19 — woman-owned green manufacturer of hand-made ceramic lighting fixtures

Kelley Blue Book Interviews Todd Suckow

Mobile Car Wash Rules Slated City of Oxnard CA

The City of Oxnard, California is concerned with the quality of its storm water and rightfully so, as it has made great strides over the years. Oxnard CA is also home to the gateway to the channel islands with some incredible beaches and nice resort style living, and all that storm water leads to the ocean and those beautiful beaches. Thus, the city has chosen to start cracking down on mobile car washes.

This should not come as any surprise to anyone, as the city had previously implemented many programs to help clean the storm water runoff. They had developed a nearly bullet proof NPDES plan to insure clean water. The beaches never looked so good and this recent ruling to finish that job nearly a decade and a half later has come all the way down to washing of cars.

Our company had dealt with this issue in the late 80s and early 90s and helped write all the NPDES BMPs for several counties near there. The devices used are fairly easy to buy, and it really doesn’t take much, further it is my contention that all mobile car washes ought to follow the rules to protect the environment and there ought to be no excuses on that.

Indeed, over the years, we’ve worked with many cities on this, in fact, one thing we did was join the committees to help write the original BMPs for surface cleaners in Ventura County, CA where the City of Oxnard is located. A mobile car wash operator should not only follow the rules but be part of the solution. Think on that.

Lance Winslow - Lance Winslow’s Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/.

Green Technology of ISAAC 2008

Green Tip - Recycle Your Plastic Bags

If you have not given up plastic bag for your own reusable bags yet, no worries, you can still make a difference! Recycle them! How? Well, there are many ways you can recycle plastic bags. We have listed a few to get you started. Use your imagination!

21 Ideas for Recycling Plastic bags:

* for filler when sending packages or when you want to store fragile items.

* use old plastic bags for liners in your bathroom or office trash can.

* to pick pet waste.

* use them as baby bib.

* arts and crafts. (off site link)

* reuse plastic bags over and over when you grocery shop.

* store wet bathing suits in them when at the pool or beach.

* dispose of dirty diapers when out and about.

* put hubbies lunch in them instead of a lunchbox.

* litter box liners.

* use plastic bags instead of Ziploc bags when possible.

* store holiday items in them.

* as a cap when giving yourself a hot oil treatment.

* make a kite with your kids.

* as a toiletry bag when traveling.

* shred and cut them to make plastic bag confetti.

* use them as gloves when cleaning.

* have your kids put them over their shoes when playing in the snow to keep shoes dry.

* cut them in to big squares and let your children finger paint with them. (under supervision, of course)

* send them to the recycle bin at your neighborhood grocery store.

* or…avoid using plastic bags all together and REALLY make a difference!

This is just small list to get you started. There are MANY ways that you can recycle and reuse plastic bags. You can also Google “recycle plastic bag ideas” and you will find tons more!

Copyright © Green Christian Network, All Rights Reserved

About the Author: Cindy Taylor is a Christian stay at home Mom who love the Lord and cares about God’s planet. You can see her passion and writing at her website, Green Christian Network (http://greenchristiannetwork.com).

ADB launches $9 billion plan for solar energy in Asia

Hopes to boost its spending on this form of renewable energy.

The Dream: Print-Out Solar Panels That Can Be Stapled to Your Roof …

Technology | Who needs big silicon panels? MIT scientists just coated paper with solar cells, reportedly the first team to ever do that. Vladimir Bulovic, director of the En.

Get The Solar Power Facts That Will Set You Right With Solar Power …

There are many incredible benefits which are generally provided through solar energy, that one would determine if they were to take some time to know about solar power facts. These solar technology details are really important to be …

India's Solar Energy demand is increasing with the robust growth …

Solar Energy Markets in India report ( www.bharatbook.com/detail.asp?id=135408&rt=Solar-Energy-Markets-in-India.html ) assesses that A steady forecasted growth for manufacturing sector would need more power generation in future. …

Make: Online : How-To: Solar Bike Stereo

Bring the tunes as you ride with this simple solar-powered bike stereo, built into a milk crate by Matt Bosher in Tempe, AZ….

A Huge Birthday Party! Giving Our Planet a Big Presenet on Earth Day

If you have a computer, imagine how you could make a difference!

How you say?

That is all I do, show others how to promote Earth day with a Professional Events Marketer that is sharing their knowledge specifically to get an important message out. Just imagine sending one note, or just telling a friend or colleague your business Supports Earth day!

It is not just about prestige it is about you creating value in your network. When you are seen to have a heart, this is attractive to people in all lifestyles. This can make your businesses look very good. Its attractive seeing a business you are involved with supporting a worthy cause!

Let me explain.

We have created Groups that are Non-profit just for helping with education, one is called Recycling Renegades, 10×10 at Face book and we have used many services that many do not know are there but used them strategically to spread the message about Earth Day. We are just getting the word out that Earth Day can Help Corporate create a better image.

To make it worthwhile for a businessperson to get involved, we have managed to get a great set of training on Social Traffic Media to get them interested in helping us with Earth Day.

Just look at the Fun we are having, but I have to say, it is a very serious message. Its not taken lightly as its global warming, pollution, rain forests rebuilding, forestry’s, clean ups on oil slicks and more. We have demonstrated our dedication with the work going into promoting Earth day and all the people fulling you tube channels and other Medias, just to get the word out about earth day, we are taking this serious.

Warning, it is not pretty! What is happening to this earth has been hidden and covered up, please if you have a weak stomach do not look and investigate.

Now look at all the Professionals that want to be part of this big picture and give a little time to learn better skills and Promote our Earth.

If over 2000 People see the Value, will you? Many together can make a loud voice for earth day do you not think it would be exceptional for your business to be involved in such a momentous occasion.

Get with it or be left behind, it is a simple decision!

Bees dying Green Tech News