New research by U.S. environmental and geo-science academicians shows a distinct warming trend in the nation’s breadbasket over the last two centuries.

The scientists drew that conclusion after examining 65,987 weather records, recording the daily mean temperatures since 1828. Those weather observations, made by doctors in pioneer forts and later Weather Bureau officials, helped Dorian J. Burnette and David Stahle of the University of Arkansas, with the help of geographer Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina, reconstruct the climate of Manhattan, Kansas, in the center of the nation. The scientists’ findings are published in the March 15 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate.

What they found was that 19th century temperatures were notably cooler than those in the 20th Century and the first decade of the 21st Century.

“It still gets cold today, but the trend from 1828 to the present day is unmistakable,” said Dr. Burnette, who holds a degree in environmental dynamics, in a news release. “There is a warming trend in the cold extremes of about 5 degrees Celsius since 1855.”

Burnette said he used daily data from seven historical stations and four modern stations in Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, to determine the daily mean temperature for each day dating back to July 1, 1828. He then computed seasonal and annual temperature means for each year, and looked at how these numbers have changed over time.

Calculating the most extreme warm and cold events for each year, Burnette found that the cold extremes are changing relative to the warm extremes, and are “warming at almost twice the rate as the warm extremes,” according to a news release.

The upsurge in warmer temperatures since 1855 tracks with the scientific belief that temperatures have been warming incrementally worldwide in concert with the increase in carbon emissions in the air from burning fossil fuels, a phenomenon of the industrial age.

Dr. Burnette’s data also show an accelerated warming trend since 1969, again fueled by a rise in cold season temperature extremes.

This is consistent with what we see globally on average,” Dr. Burnette said.

Burnette also studied records from the U.S. Army Surgeon General, the Smithsonian Institution and the Signal Service housed in the National Archives in his quest to find the detailed weather information from these early observers. In interpreting the data, the team developed a computer program that could help check readings against others in the region, to make sure that inaccurate data was excluded or to interpret weather vernacular that was used in the 19th century.

Walmart announced a plan to reduce carbon emissions across its global supply chain today, saying it intends to shave 20 million metric tons off its greenhouse gas emissions   through 2015.

Walmart CEO Mike Duke annoucing carbon reduction goals

The reductions will come from Walmart’s own operations and  from “the life cycle of the products we sell,” said Walmart CEO Mike Duke, adding that the savings would be the equivalent of taking 3.8 million greenhouse gas-emitting cars off the road for a year.

“It’s a very sizable goal, as we often do here at Walmart,” he said.

Calculated another way, the reductions represent 150 percent of Walmart’s anticipated carbon growth over the next five years.

The reductions will be done as Walmart works with suppliers and will come from reduced energy spent on manufacturing and transportation; from products redesigned to consume less raw material or last longer; from the reduction of disposable products and the increased use of recycled goods, Duke said. “All of this is part of the life cycle of products.”

“We will be the leader in retailing because we will be the first to look at the supply chain on a global basis,” he told an audience of partner groups, reporters and suppliers during the webcast announcement from the company’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark..

Duke explained that Walmart sees these carbon reductions as compatible with business growth.

“There are millions more customers around the world who really do want to save money and that Walmart could reach. We do plan and want to continue to build stores. We want to add square footage, that’s the reality of our business. Yet we know we need to get ready for a world in which energy will only be more expensive. And there will be a greater need to operate with less carbon in the supply chain,” Duke said.

He said he expects that the efficiencies found as suppliers reduce their carbon emissions will result in continued lower prices for customers. “Like everything we do around here at Walmart, this commitment ends up coming down to our customers, and helping our customers around the world save money and live better.”

More sustainable business practices also can help shield customers from high energy costs in their own lives, Duke said.

“That is why America needs comprehensive legislative policy that addresses energy, energy security, the country’s competitiveness and reducing pollution.”

Several environmentalists and advisors, including Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp, joined Duke and Walmart executives for the announcement.

EDF has set up at office in Bentonville, Ark., near Walmart headquarters.

The retailer also has worked with the Natural Resources Defense Council and World Wildlife Fund to develop its sustainability plan.

Tree Hugger and Planet Green co-sponsored the webcast. TreeHugger founder Graham Hill helped kick off the news conference by remote, with a video lesson on greenhouse gases, which he likened to a blanket that’s getting too thick and threatening to disrupt the climate humans are adapted to. He discussed ways products can be more earth-friendly, alluding to paper towels that can be ripped off in half sheets and proper sizing of food portions.

TreeHugger Editor-in-Chief Meaghan O’Neill talked with an invited panel about how business and sustainability can interact. A FoxHome Entertainment executive showed off a DVD package that has less plastic and Paul Kelly of Walmart-owned Asda in the UK talked about how more sustainable products can be low cost.

“You can decouple business growth from carbon growth,’’ said Asda exec Kelly.

Walmart, once widely derided as a merciless profit-seeker and crusher of small businesses, has in recent years taken a variety of steps, from using fuel-efficient trucks to buying more local food and daylighting its stores, to reduce its carbon footprint. Lately, it has been pushing its suppliers to operate more sustainably, and already gives points to products that come with less packaging and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Critics says that Walmart’s push is more about squeezing out costs than greenhouse gases. But others, including some leading environmentalists, vouch for Walmart’s sincerity and believe its scale gives it an incredible podium.

“Walmart is looking at the big picture,” said Krupp, by leveraging its vast vendor network to achieve change.

During a mock interview with a Walmart executive during the webcast, Krupp said Walmart is showing leadership by acting in advance of government mandates to reduce carbon emissions and also throwing out a challenge to consumer products companies around the world.

“What’s sensational is that you’re (Walmart) going to launch a process, a race, a treasure hunt among your suppliers to find ways to cut carbon pollution and cut their energy costs.”

For more information, see the Walmart Fact Sheet on how it intends to reduce carbon emissions.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

When the Copenhagen Climate Conference ended in mid-December, it was widely decried by climate activists as embarrassingly inconclusive, at best, and a failure at worst (you can’t get much worse than that).

And yet, there were plenty of voices, including that of President Obama, urging everyone to hold tight and pointing out that alliances had been formed and the world’s major polluters had stepped up, however tentatively. They had issued hard numbers, a percentages by which they would try to rollback greenhouse gas emissions.

And that’s what it’s all about, reeling in those emissions. So despite the chaos, the under-achieving, the low-ball aspirations, the feinting and ducking, the world’s leading nations, including previously absent U.S., stepped up to the plate. You could say they hit a series of ground balls, but at least they took the bat.

These nations were asked to officially record their promises by signing the Copenhagen Accord by the end of January. This follow-up event was anti-climatic and received less media attention.

But the end result was that the emissions targets were documented and recorded for posterity — and hopefully for prosperity. (That’s what everyone seems to forget, that we need to forgo the pollution so we and future generations can live long and prosper, not so we can have higher electric bills.)

NRDC International Climate Policy Director, Jake Schmidt

Anyway. This week, in his blog, Jake Schmidt, director of the NRDC’s International Climate Policy, writes that 60 countries have firmed up their pledges in the final document; including the top 12 carbon-emitting nations.

Schmidt and the NRDC have put together a table of these commitments to emphasize that world leaders are somewhat  (actually literally) on a page.

“These countries are the “big players” which almost single-handedly hold the key to solving global warming.  The steps they take are critical.  So let me repeat: countries representing over 80% of the world’s emissions have just committed to steps to reduce their global warming pollution. As I’ve discussed here, this is a huge shift from where we were just 2 years ago (and even 6 months ago).  That is something to build upon since the key to solving global warming is whether or not key countries are committing to take action.”

But Schmidt knows that “commitments” and “action” can wave at each other over a large chasm. He says environmentalists must just get out there and start proving that reducing GHGs can create jobs and won’t wreck the economy.

Then we’ll see our government follow along.

(Stay tuned for more hopeful musings by another blogger, who says that this leadership by the public is already happening — especially in the business sector.)

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Call it the Texas two-step.

Just after Texas Governor Rick Perry filed a lawsuit against the EPA on Tuesday, questioning the federal agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, Texas environmental groups parried back.

Texas’ Public Citizen and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club announced they were issuing Perry a citizen citation to “cease and desist endangering the health of breathers, the economy and the climate in Texas by continuing to permit coal plants and other large sources of CO2.”

The groups explained in a joint news release from Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office, and Ken Kramer, director of the Lone Star Sierra Chapter:

“This morning, Gov. Rick Perry attempted to show Texas voters that he is bigger than both Texas and federal law by filing a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health. Instead, he just further highlighted his failure to protect Texans’ health and the safety and long-term stability of our economy and climate.

“Instead of suing the EPA, Perry should be taking proactive steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build up our clean energy economy. Perry likes to brag about his accomplishments in promoting wind and energy efficiency and the emissions Texas has avoided as a result, but he is also hammering through a second Texas coal rush that will negate all that hard work and add 77 million tons of CO2 to Texas’ already overheated air.”

The statement argued that Texas law requires the regulation of air pollution, defined as “air contaminants” in Texas state code.

These contaminants, according to Texas’ Health and Safety Code, include “radioactive material, dust, fumes, gas, mist, smoke, vapor, or odor, including any combination of those items, produced by processes other than natural.”

“Perry has proudly demonstrated willful ignorance of this portion of Texas law time and time again, and has ordered state agencies such as the TCEQ to ignore it as well,” the two environmental leaders said.

For more on the petition filed by Texas against the EPA see Texas challenges EPA’s designation of greenhouse gases as harmful.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and the state’s Attorney General and Agriculture commissioner, announced Tuesday that the state will challenge the EPA’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gases are endangering human health.

Texas has filed a Petition for Review of the EPA’s finding with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit , questioning the science behind the EPA’s finding and whether the agency should be allowed to regulate industries’ greenhouse gas emissions.

The move follows a similar one by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last week, when the Chamber filed a petition against the EPA to stop the agency from regulating greenhouse gases. The Chamber says it favors greenhouse gas reductions, but that giving the EPA the authority to assess fines against polluters is the “wrong way” to do it.

The EPA responded to the Texas filing with this statement from Dr. Alfredo “Al” Armendariz, EPA Regional Administrator for Region 6:

“Todays action is not surprising. Texas officials have repeatedly expressed opposition to the EPA’s common sense approach to begin reducing harmful greenhouse gases. Texas, which contributes up to 35 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted by industrial sources in the United States, should be leading the way in this effort. Instead, Texas officials are attempting to slow progress with unnecessary litigation.

“EPA is confident the endangerment finding, which was issued as a result of a 2007 Supreme Court decision, will withstand legal challenge.”               

Both the Texas petition and the one filed by the U.S. Chamber express concern that regulating greenhouse gases — or in the case of the Chamber’s suit, assessing fines to violators –  will be costly for businesses.

Perry’s suit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals, specifically cites industries that depend on fossil fuels and the livestock industry.

“This legal action is being taken to protect the Texas economy and the jobs that go with it, as well as defend Texas’ freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach,” Perry said in a news release.

The EPA officially deemed greenhouse gases to be a threat to human health in 2009 after the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Bush Administration’s reasons for not regulating these pollutants to be insufficient. The EPA is charged with regulating air pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Environmental Defense Fund Texas Regional Director Jim Marston said Gov. Perry’s action against the EPA represents a step backwards for Texas.

“The lawsuit filed by Governor Perry is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. vs. Massachusetts. Their action invokes memories of a sad time in Texas history from the ’50s, when Texas politicians sought to nullify decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only is it legally unsound, it puts Texas on the side of the 1950s economy, against the clean energy economy of the future.”

Perry and his co-filers, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, criticize the EPA’s “endangerment finding” on greenhouse gases, saying that the EPA wrongly relied heavily on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has recently come under fire for having miscalculated or exaggerated some of the effects of global warming. For instance, a finding that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone in a few decades turned out to be based on one scientist’s estimation, and not any peer-reviewed study.

Leaders with the global alliance of scientists, however, have defended the panel’s basic conclusion that the world is warming, pointing to Arctic ice melts and rising seas.

But Texas Attorney General Abbott says that controversies around the IPCC call into question the EPA’s greenhouse gas position.

“With billions of dollars at stake, EPA outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy,” Attorney General Abbott said.

According to the Texas news release,  “the International[sic] Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)… has been discredited by evidence of key scientists’ lack of objectivity, coordinated efforts to hide flaws in their research, attempts to keep contravening evidence out of IPCC reports and violation of freedom of information laws.”

The EDF defends the EPA, however, saying the agency drew on science from many sources, such as NOAA and the USDA, not just the IPCC.

“Some of the challengers have claimed that the scientific underpinning for EPA’s action is weak. In fact, EPA’s decision is based on a two hundred page synthesis of major scientific assessments by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Research Council, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the NOAA National Climatic Data Center, CNA Corporation, and others.”
(The EPA “Technical Support Document for the Findings” is available at the EPA website on climate change.)

The EDF statement also notes that the U.S. Chamber has fought the Clean Air Act before, in 1997, when the EPA moved to regulate particulate and ozone pollution.

Then, the Chamber claiming that it would harm manufacturers, farm interests, cement makers, auto manufacturers, the pulp and paper mill industry, petroleum refiners, iron and steel firms, home builders, mining interests, and power companies, the EDF said.

“Today, millions of Americans have been protected with healthier air and the science is only more compelling in documenting the harm from particulate and ozone pollution.”

In its current petition against the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases, the Chamber says it would favor a Congressional bill on climate change over direct government regulation.

“The right way” to regulate carbon pollution, according to the Chamber’s news release “is through bipartisan legislation that promotes new technologies, emphasizes efficiency, ensures affordable energy for families and businesses, and defends American jobs while returning our economy to prosperity. ”

The House of Representatives passed a bill to address climate change last summer, but the Senate has remained stalled on the issue for months.

In what might seem a no-brainer, the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday pronounced greenhouse gases to be  a verifiable public health threat to all Americans.

The announcement came on the first day of the Copenhagen Climate Conference and after what the EPA describes as a “thorough examination of the scientific evidence” required by government rules as the agency prepares to set standards for “light-duty vehicles.”

Though largely a formality given the EPA’s view of greenhouse gases has been fairly clear, the timing of the announcement sends a signal to negotiators that the EPA is prepared to enforce its clean air mandate, with or without a Congressional climate bill.

Some environmental groups, in fact, seemed to view the announcement as a lob over the net to Congress.

“The danger of global warming pollution is clear and present, the solutions are at hand, and the time for action is now,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. “It’s time for Congress to finish its work on U.S. legislation to cap and reduce the 19 million tons of heat-trapping pollution we emit every day.”

It’s also clearly intended as a message to climate negotiators in Denmark.

“Today’s action also makes clear that the Obama administration is doing its part to combat climate change. That amplifies our voice and strengthens our hand going into Copenhagen,”   said Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke.

“This announcement couldn’t come at a more important time,” said Sierra Club president Carl Pope. “The Obama administration has followed through on its pledge to act …President Obama sees the Big Picture—by shifting to clean energy, and cracking down on the corporations that pollute the water we drink and the air we breathe, we can restore our economy to prosperity and reduce our dependence on oil and coal, all while tackling global warming.”

Krupp also noted that a plan to cut greenhouse gases can be good for business, a majority point of contention in political circles, be it Washington or Copenhagen.

“American leadership on climate change will strengthen our security, wean us off of foreign oil, and ensure that America wins the race to clean energy innovation in the global market place,” he said.

At the conference, EPA Adminstrator Lisa P. Jackson said, “These long-overdue findings cement 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform. Business leaders, security experts, government officials, concerned citizens and the United States Supreme Court have called for enduring, pragmatic solutions to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that is causing climate change.”

As scientists around the world have documented, rising GHGs are causing rapid climate change by trapping gases in the atmosphere, leading to warmer and longer heat waves that are melting the ice caps, causing seas to rise and jeopardizing the world’s inhabitants. The gases also increase ground-level ozone pollution that is linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

EPA’s report covers emissions of the six major greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, all of which have been the focus of studies by scientists in the US and around the globe.

These studies invariably point out that global warming is the result of human activities, such as carbon emissions from coal-fired plants and cars and trucks.

Aside from recording increases in average global temperatures, scientists have been charting sharp increases in melting ice in the Arctic, the loss of glaciers around the world, rising ocean temperatures and sea levels, changes in precipitation patterns and acidification of oceans — all linked to carbon dioxide pollution.

The EPA said its declaration on Monday is part of its obligation imposed by a 2007 US Supreme Court decision determining that  GHGs fit the definition of air pollution governable by the Clean Air Act.

The ’07 ruling rejected the Bush Administration contention that the EPA did not need to address greenhouse gases under the nation’s clean air laws.

However, the new EPA report does not force the issue of emission reduction,

Instead, the findings allow the EPA to finalize GHG standards that were proposed earlier this year for new light-duty vehicles in conjunction with the Department of Transportation.

The EPA report states that on-road vehicles are responsible for more than 23 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions. EPA’s proposed GHG standards would lessen GHG emissions by almost 950 million metric tons and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of model year 2012-2016 vehicles.

EDF’s Krupp says the EPA announcement is a wakeup call for new policies by the U.S. Senate that enforce carbon emission reductions and expand America’s clean energy economy.

Unfortunately, he says, some climate change deniers are hoping to slow progress by using scare tactics, claiming that the EPA pronouncement will result in a “cow tax,” a reference to the fact that cows are big methane emitters.

EPA’s action is long overdue, says Krupp. Citizens have petitioned EPA since 1999 to deal with global warming pollution. Since that time, the country has emitted nearly 70 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and heat-trapping carbon dioxide concentrations have risen to 387 parts per million. Scientists say that 350 parts per million should be our goal if the planet is to survive as we know it.

Here’s an audio clip on the  EPA on greenhouse gas announcement.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

This number shows Earth’s collective 3 trillion-plus metric tons of combined greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

You’ll notice that it is a BIG number. And it’s already outdated. This picture was captured yesterday. Look at the counter today on the web, and the number will be bigger.

The volume of greenhouse gases is constantly ticking upward. Much faster than a watch. Steady as an oil derrick. As ominously as a time bomb.

“It keeps on going up while we’re talking and discussing possible policy; it keeps going up,” says Ronald Prinn, co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change,  the group behind this carbon counter and one of two major entities that measure global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

“Things are happening. We’re burning fossil fuels. We’re producing greenhouse gases and adding to the stockpile in the atmosphere,”

Carbon counter billboard in NYC. (Photo: Eric Rank, Deutsche Bank)

In New York City, this carbon counter looms large  in Manhattan, thanks to a near-70-foot billboard topped by the moving meter that was launched by Deutsche Bank’s Asset Management Division to raise awareness about climate change. The billboard, just outside Penn Station and Madison Square Garden, was erected this summer, and stands as a reminder to all who pass by, such as those attending the United Nations Climate Summit this week.

The summit, a prequel to the Copenhagen Conference in December, brought together US President Barack Obama and China’s President Hu Jintao, who both explained some measures their countries would take to curb climate change. It offered jolting pronouncements, like the one from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that scientists’ models leave “no space” for inaction.

We talked with Dr. Prinn, a professor of Atmospheric Science who directs the MIT Center for Global Change Science, about those latest projections and the basic science behind them.

First, he explained, the carbon counter in NYC presents an aggregate of the 40 greenhouse gases, the largest one, far and way, being carbon dioxide in the atmosphere worldwide.

What does this number really mean? The atmosphere is so big, it seems like it could handle a certain amount of carbon.

Indeed, nature has ways to process or absorb carbon, replies Prinn. But there are limits and we’re testing them. Since the industrial age began (say 1750), the world has been adding carbon to the air from the burning of fossil fuels –  coal, oil, gasoline — faster than natural elements can absorb it. The Earth’s forests and oceans, which serve as carbon “sinks,” are being tapped out. And we’ve been aggravating the situation by chopping down the forests that can capture and hold carbon.

So the carbon cycle is out of whack, and the excess is building up in the air. Carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas, builds up for a long time because it can persist in the atmosphere for more than 100 years.

To restore balance we need to find non-polluting energy solutions, get off fossil fuels and re-examine agriculture, too, because cattle contribute a potent greenhouse gas, methane, Prinn said.

What happens if we don’t?

“If we decide to do nothing for the next 90 years, if we decided that we don’t care about global warming, we can increase this (carbon) number by factors of two to three.”

You mean it would…”Yes, a doubling or tripling.”

Dr. Ronald Prinn, director of the MIT Center for Global Change Science

In terms of temperature, that amount of carbon in the air would mean Earth would be on average about 10 degrees Centigrade warmer by 2100 or – get ready to be singed – 18 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

This new, hotter prognosis is the result of recent analysis, published on MIT’s website in May, showing that global warming is occurring much faster than previously thought.

Under such change, both arctic poles would be nearly or completely melted. Their extinction would mean the oceans would rise dramatically, enough to put Bangladesh under water – along with parts of Florida and significant portions of both US coastlines.

Calamitous changes would face areas in the Southwest US and Mexico which would be too hot and dry for many crops; border disputes would break out across the globe between nations fighting over water and arable land.

“I think that for us to do nothing about this issue would be irresponsible to future generations, it would be saying we don’t care,’’ says Prinn. “In fact the people who would see this happening would be children born today, it’s a good chance at least in the rich countries they’ll be alive in 2100. Significant fractions of them will experience these big changes and stresses on the planet.”

And yet, “one has to be careful not to say that this would be the end of humanity.”

To a scientist, says Prinn, this is a problem requiring immediate action, but not one that calls for panic or incendiary rhetoric.

We have to take it a step at a time. First we slow the meter, he says. Then we stabilize it. Then we try to turn it back.

Our generation’s job is to slow it, to examine the 20 or so low-emissions energy solutions on the table  – nuclear power, wind power, solar generation, conservation – and move in the right direction.

Then the next generation can use the latest technology, which could be much improved, to roll the numbers back in coming decades.

It took awhile for Earth to get to this point, he said.  Carbon dioxide, the most abundant and one of the most persistent greenhouse gases can reside in the atmosphere for 120 years; methane, the second most significant greenhouse gases, can last nine years. So it will take many changes to work off the overload.

“Under no circumstances is this to say it’s the end of humanity,’’ reiterates Prinn. “It is a wake-up call. It’s time to slow that counter down and make it steady. Then we can talk about lowering it.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

When we put our shoes on, we don’t really think about where they’ve been before they got to us.

Most likely, they were manufactured somewhere overseas, China or Vietnam perhaps, then shipped to the United States. But where did the material used to manufacture them come from? Are your shoes made of leather? If so, there’s a chance they’re contributing to climate change — and the illegal destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

Greenpeace International says rainforests are being needlessly lost not just to the meat trade but to the leather industry, as cattle ranches expand illegally in Brazilian Amazon region.

In June, Greenpeace released Slaughtering the Amazon, a three year investigation into the deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. The group found that illegal incursions by cattle ranchers were rapidly depleting the forests, which released large quantities of greenhouse gases otherwise stored in the tropical environment.

“Forest destruction accounts for almost 1/5 of global emissions-that is more climate pollution than all the world’s cars, trucks, trains, planes, and ships combined,” said Lindsey Allen, Forest Campaigner for Greenpeace.

“Slaughtering the Amazon” estimates that illegal expansion of cattle ranches is responsible for 80% of all deforestation, and according to Greenpeace, “the cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for an average of one acre lost every 8 seconds.”

Usually, this would be when we would expect for someone to tell us to pay attention to where our steak is coming from. It’s true that Brazil is now the world’s largest beef exporter, and the meat trade is a huge player in deforestation. But the actual beef is not the only big money maker.  The hides of the cattle play a larger role than you might imagine in its value.

Leather accounts for more than one quarter of the total value of the cattle trade for Brazil. The report states that “the Brazilian leather industry’s total export revenue in 2008 was $1.9 billion from some 24,800,000 million hides.” The largest use of the leather is not furniture or garments, but shoe production.

Bertin, the world’s largest leather trader, receives their hides from the Brazilian Amazon and supplies brands such as Nike, Adidas/Reebok, Timberland, Prada, Geox, and Clarks.

These surprising details contained in the “Slaughtering of the Amazon” were eye-opening to these shoe manufactures. Nike took the first step.

“When Greenpeace brought this issue to our attention we knew that Amazon deforestation is a serious concern and one that required we immediately look into our supply chain and leather sourcing,” stated Kate Meyers, Corporate Communications Manager for Nike. The company has developed a new policy that’s asking suppliers to verify where they’re getting their leather.

Putting Leather on a More Sustainable Track

Nike is giving suppliers until July 1, 2010, to create a transparent system showing none of the leather came from ranches responsible for illegal deforestation. Nike also will require that suppliers join the Leather Working Group by December 2009.

“Our hope for the new policy is that through the Leather Working Group the industry will work together over the next 12 months to institute a traceability system that the entire industry can use,” said Meyers.

The Leather Working Group (LWG), founded in 2005, is engaged in reducing environmental impacts through the footwear leather supply chain. They audit leather manufacturers, ranking them on environmental stewardship. The LWG will help set the traceability and measurement requirements for the new system, which will be incorporated into current protocol.

Other shoe companies also are trying to make changes. Adidas/Reebok released their policy last week.

Greenpeace, however, is not certain the Adidas/Reebok plan goes far enough, because it may not hold all suppliers accountable. The Adidas/Reebok policy restricts all leather trading with the Amazon Biome suppliers, but Greenpeace worries that other leather traders could still receive leather from the rainforest  and sell to Adidas/Reebok.

“The policy in our opinion needs to be strengthened a bit…We believe it is better to set a timeline to suppliers of leather to commit to an end of new deforestation within the Amazon,” said Oliver Salge, Head Forest and Oceans Campaigner for Greenpeace. Adidas/Reebok and Greenpeace are currently working together to develop a stronger policy.

Meanwhile, Bertin also is under guidance from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation to tighten its supply chain and make sure its operations do not encourage illegal deforestation or the illegal use of lands belonging to indigenous people.

For consumers who want to be part of the solution, environmentally friendly shoes are popping up everywhere.

• Online mega-shoe store Zappos has eco-friendly and vegan categories.

• La Sportiva has a new line of recycled shoes. Their new sustainable shoes are made of recycled rubber for the outsole and recycled nylon for the mesh, laces, webbing, and lining.

• Another brand, Simple shoes, whose slogan is “shoes for a happy planet”, offers a 100% sustainable product. You will never guess what things they use to make their shoes. Simple Shoes (pictured, right) are made out of materials such as hemp, bamboo, corks, car tires, and coconut shells.

(Photo credits: Greenpeace International, Nike, Simple Shoes.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Greenpeace’s report “Slaughtering the Amazon” notes that Brazil’s thriving and expanding cattle trade, which has made it the world’s largest exporter of beef and the top producer (along with China) of leather, has out-sized environmental consequences.

“The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is responsible for 14% of the world’s annual deforestation. This makes it the world’s largest driver of deforestation, responsible for more forest loss than the total deforestation in any country outside Brazil except Indonesia,” according to the report, the result of a three-year investigation by Greenpeace International.

The report’s findings suggest dire consequences for the planet if illegal deforestation associated with the beef and leather industries is not stopped because the Amazon rainforests absorb and hold huge quantities of carbon pollution.

“The Amazon is estimated to store 80-120 billion tonnes of carbon. If destroyed, some fifty times the annual GHG emissions of the USA could be emitted,” according to the report, which relied on government and research institute statistics.

“Slaughtering the Amazon” details how the cattle industry is growing in Brazil, fueled by favorable laws that encourage rapid growth and global companies such as Bertin, JBS and Marfrig that profess neutrality, but actually source from ranches that have moved into rainforest areas, according to the Greenpeace report, released in June.

“Greenpeace has identified hundreds of ranches within the Amazon rainforest supplying cattle to slaughterhouses in the Amazon region belonging to these companies. Where Greenpeace was able to obtain mapped boundaries for ranches, satellite analysis reveals that significant supplies of cattle come from ranches active in recent and illegal deforestation.”

Greenpeace investigators go on to explain that these goods travel into the food chain, unbeknown to consumers and often unchecked by Blue Chip companies worldwide. The products effectively vanish into the global market, becoming meat in packaged meals, leather upholstery in cars and fine Italian shoes.

Greenpeace supports many possible solutions including:

• More responsibility on the part of consumer companies in how they source and verify raw goods.
• Stronger world support for the Amazon Fund set up in Brazil  to help stop deforestation by providing alternative financial support to landowners and people living in the tropical regions — an idea that’s been roundly praised but thinly funded, mainly by Norway and Germany, according to Greenpeace.
• Leading industrialized countries must cut their carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels) to avoid a “tipping point” in which climate change careens forward unchecked. Greenpeace (among many other groups) wants world leaders to agree to this level of commitment at the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December.
• A world commitment to zero deforestation by 2015 in the Amazon, the Congo Basin, and the Paradise forests of Southeast Asia, because these forests help slow global warming and also because they are home to indigenous peoples.

Shall we have an omelet with vegetables and cheese for breakfast?

Let’s order a Caesar salad for lunch, with some chicken noodle soup.

And dinner – Who’s up for meatloaf, with macaroni and cheese on the side and some chocolate chip cookies to top it off?

Oh, while you’re at it, stop for a second and ask yourself: What impact does this food have on the environment?

Here’s some food for thought: An entertaining interactive tool lets you add up your “carbon points” and see just how badly those three cups of coffee are hurting the world.

The Sierra Club’s Green Home site has a lineup of virtual meals and menu items that you can drag and drop into a frying pan to calculate your “CO2e points.”

CO2e represents the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of greenhouse gases (which can include methane). The researchers who helped develop the tool established that eating 4,500 “carbon points” a day is a pretty high count. If you eat that much or more, “it equals emissions of about three tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) every year – the equivalent of taking three round-trip, three-hour flights,” the site says. Each point is 1 gram of CO2e.

The world’s food system, they say, is responsible for one-third of all the world’s greenhouse gas emissions – and eating in the U.S. contributes 5 percent of the globe’s greenhouse gases.

We took the frying pan for a whirl:

Under the “Menu items” tab we chose from an array of food options for our three meals: granola with yogurt and a banana for breakfast, Chinese chicken salad and lentil soup for lunch, and for dinner, several portions of tuna, shrimp and salmon sushi. Oh, and some sugar cookies. We can’t forget our daily dose of coffee, soda and wine, as well.

The grand total: 3,654 points. Not too bad.

Under the “Sample Meals” tab, we were presented with a selection of options that might be selected at a restaurant. For breakfast, simple cereal with a banana; for lunch, a roast beef sandwich and chips; for dinner – we couldn’t resist – an Indian feast!

Gulp. Even without the coffee, soda and wine our score was off the charts with a whopping 9.432 points. How grossly un-green.

The calculator was created with the help of Bon Appétit Management Company, which provides cafes and catering services to companies, colleges and other venues. Their emphasis is on fresh food and cooking from scratch with sustainable ingredients. Also, they cite research from more than 40 peer-reviewed research papers compiled by two science teams.

The carbon calculator isn’t perfect — it doesn’t have all possible ingredients and combinations that you encounter in a normal day. But based on your preferences, you can get a pretty good idea of where you stand.

There is also a helpful Q&A section (click on the “What do these points mean?” line under the little carbon thermometer). Among their bits of wisdom:

Don’t try to eliminate every carbon point from your total – aim for knocking off 25 percent of the points from your daily diet.

You bought it, you eat it – throwing out food eats up a lot of energy, and in a landfill it creates more methane gas released into the atmosphere.

Buy seasonal and regional – That’s obvious. But did you know that tomatoes or lettuce grown in hothouses can create more emissions than those grown in the ground that are farther away and trucked in? Or that canned tomatoes processed in season are more climate-friendly than greenhouse-grown ones? And a true offender? Tropical fruit flown from far, far away.

Cut down the beef and cheese – You don’t have to become a vegan, but the calculator says that “Livestock production causes 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases . . . Consider reducing portion sizes of meat and cheese” and eat them less often.

Don’t eat fish that’s flown – “fresh” seafood flown great distances is substantially worse, environmentally, than that which is “processed and frozen at sea.” And, they say, it’s probably not going to taste as good as the latter.

Forget processed food – Junk food, packaged snacks and cereal bars are energy gluttons.

Is organic food better? – Not necessarily, they say, because what you eat and how much you waste is more important in terms of your carbon footprint.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

FedEx has added 92 hybrid-electric trucks to its fleet, all of which are converted standard delivery trucks.

The increase represents a jump of 50 percent in the company’s hybrid fleet, bringing it to a total of 264 hybrid-electric vehicles. FedEx estimates that its hybrid fleet has saved an estimated 1,521 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions since 2004. That’s equivalent to taking 279 cars off the road annually.

The hybrid conversions, which retrofitted 2000 and 2001 model trucks, also helped boost green jobs in the Charlotte, N.C., area, creating 50 new, although temporary jobs, the company reported in an announcement today.

“FedEx and our suppliers have demonstrated that converted hybrids are a viable, lower-cost option compared to purchasing new hybrids,” said John Formisano, vice president, Global Vehicles, FedEx Express in the statement.

The retrofitted vehicles will be placed into service in San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles.

FedEx credited California with helping FeEx initiate its hybrid program in 2004 by providing incentives for hybrid vehicles.

In today’s announcement, Formisano urged the federal government to keep incentives alive to make projects such as the retrofits more scalable.

“We now need government incentives to end a Catch-22 situation: Production volumes are low due to high cost, and costs will only come down with higher production volumes,” he said.

The new hybrid trucks are projected to improve fuel economy by 44 percent. They will produce almost no particulate matter compared to the old combustion engine trucks (a 96 percent reduction) and also will have significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions, the company reported.

For more information on FedEx, which employs 280,000 people worldwide, its hybrid vehicles and other energy saving measures the company uses, see news.fedex.com

Congress has approved what will be a big bonanza for car buyers — not to mention car dealers — with the “Cash for Clunkers” bill that cleared the Senate on Thursday.

Once signed by President Obama, who pushed for the law, car buyers will be able to get up to $4,500 toward more efficient new vehicles (like the Honda Insight shown here) when they trade in their aging gas guzzlers (or even just their aging cars that get so-so mileage). Cars must pre-date 2002 but not be older than 1984 models.

Ironically, this generous program would not be available had it not been for the short-sighted American car manufacturers who made so many gas gulpers, their heedless American customers and also the torpid economy. None of those players gets chastened or overhauled or even pinched in this deal.

Consumers, in fact, get rewarded for not paying attention earlier. The forward-thinking person who bought a Civic years ago can’t trade it in now because they get good gas mileage!

Ironies aside, the Clunkers law should help get some high-emissions vehicles off the road: Clunkers have to get 18 mpg or less to qualify as trade-in candidates. The new car or truck you choose to replace the clunker must provide an improvement of 10 mpg to qualify for the $4,500 voucher.  If you improve your mileage by just four mpg, you would qualify for a $3,500 voucher (which is just about the weeniest of requirements, indicating that this is really all about triggering new car purchases and not so much about improving the Earth’s atmosphere.)

There are likable aspects to this bill. It helps people with old cars that aren’t worth much, and in this economy, that’s apropos. In other words, if your trade-in is worth more than $4,500, then it doesn’t qualify for the program, and you probably don’t need the help anyway. Keep your fancy-pants aging gas guzzler, you, you, SUV person!

And with all this sad news about car dealers losing their dealerships, tanking Michigan towns, and idled factories, this law will spread some dollars around. Rather like George Bailey handing out a few needed dollars to the savings and loan customers, instead of letting the whole system crash.

And yet, it feels like once again we’re shopping to save ourselves.

For more info on the Cash for Clunkers program, visit the website.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media