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

In honor of blog action day, so designated by the group Change.org with partners like Greenpeace and 350.org, I found myself explaining the 350 number to my kids on the way to school. As it happens, the teenager already knew about this benchmark, thanks to AP science classes and the vast online world. The younger one didn’t. But she got it right away.

It’s not a hard concept.

Once we thought that the threshold for too much carbon pollution in the air should be set 450 ppm. That would be the upper limit for carbon dioxide in the air, the point at which things could turn ugly. Keep carbon dioxide below 450 and we’d avert the sort of greenhouse gas warming that would strip Earth of the polar ice caps, flood coastlines and islands around the globe, kill off forests, drive legions of animals into extinction, intensify droughts and generally stir up Kansas in ways Dorothy never imagined.

But today many groups and scientists are saying that the 450 threshold is too lax (see this 2008 report by one group of scientists.). Why? Because we’re already living in a world where the polar ice caps are melting and the coastlines are creeping upward.

The destruction we thought was down the road, off in the hazy future, is already happening. And we’re only at 390 ppm. What happens at 450 ppm? Do we want to find out?

“Things are happening much faster than we expected, 350 is the unfortunate threshold. Unfortunate because we’re already past it,” said environmentalist and 350.org founder Bill McKibben in a news conference this week.

McKibben likened the situation to the guy who sees his doctor and is told that his cholesterol is high, so he should watch it, versus the guy who turns up at the doctor’s office already in the danger zone and needs intervention.

“We’re already having heart attacks,” he said, referring to global signs of climate change. “We have to accelerate the transition off fossil fuel much faster than we thought. We have to act quickly so the forests and oceans can scrub the carbon from the atmosphere.”

“That’s why we’ve mounted this campaign, 350.org.”

Like I said, it’s not hard to understand.

The difficult question is, will it be achievable?

McKibben, who’s devoted his writing and scholarly career to environmental action, sees hopeful signs. He cited growing public awareness and the openness of the  Obama Administration to make changes, as well as receptiveness to the message around the globe. He mentioned the Maldives, which stands to disappear underwater, where the national leaders are holding a scuba-cabinet meeting to highlight their plight.

The missing element, McKibben believes, is a strong push from the public at large that could help Congress, businesses and other leaders justify making the hard decisions required to curb global warming. And, he noted,  it would be nice if that push made itself evident sometime before the Copenhagen Conference in December where global leaders will set goals for greenhouse gas emissions.

The public needs to clamor for the changes it wants and needs, or face having to accept policies that don’t go far enough and won’t solve the problem, he said.

Since falling short is not an option for the members of 350.org, the group has organized a International Day of Climate Action set for Oct. 24. Thousands of rallies in at least 170 nations across both Latin and South America, Africa and Europe and even in Iraq and Afghanistan are planned. There will be about 1,000 events just in the US (you can sign up or find one near you at the website).

All of these demonstrations will be making the point that we need to roll back the blanket of pollution that’s turning Earth into a toxic greenhouse.

So save the date. And remember the number.

“It’s not action we need,” McKibben said. “It’s action enough to make a difference.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

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

As inventors of all varieties race to develop the magic eco-fuel, the best ion battery or the  most effective solar collection system, geologists are quietly exploring how certain types of rocks absorb our human carbon emissions.

The phenomenon is not unique. Trees and plants absorb some carbon. The ocean absorbs carbon. But trees can only do so much, and when they die, they release the carbon back into the atmosphere. The ocean has limits as well; it is already becoming acidic as gobbles our thickening stream of pollution.

Rocks, though, can capture carbon and render it into a solid, where it is virtually inert.

There’s a teeny problem. The rocks that are most effective at capturing carbon do so over thousands of years, naturally.

Researchers at the Columbia University’s Earth Institute are working on a process to speed that up a bit. It’s called mineral carbonation and involves dissolving carbon dioxide in water, injecting it into the rock and using the heat generated by the reaction to accelerate the mineralization.

Aside from tinkering with nature’s process. Certain rocks, called ultramafic, are required. They, unlike some other stone cousins, interact with carbon dioxide to form minerals. Fortunately, in the United States, thousands of square miles of these rocks – which include peridotite, dunite, lherzholite and others — can be found along the west and east coasts, beneath the earth and popping through the surface in places. The Columbia team has mapped these suddenly valuable formations in in a new report.

Now with the rock inventory identified, researchers should be ready to rock and roll.

If they’re able to perect the technology (making the chemical absorption work faster), they will have pieced together the granddaddy of closed-loop systems in the fight against global warming: Taking the fossil fuel pollution that we humans have created with oil and coal from deep in the earth and stashing it back into the earth.

Environmental scientists were to have a new set of eyes starting this week, thanks to a brand new satellite intended to help make sense of carbon dioxide levels in Earth’s atmosphere.

But that goal will be postponed, thanks to a dramatic launch failure that took place hours before dawn on Tuesday. As NASA’s initial report put it, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) satellite “failed to reach orbit” this morning after lifting off from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California; the mishap was preliminarily blamed on a clamshell-like enclosure for the satellite that evidently failed to separate. Later reports assert that the rocket splashed into the ocean near Antarctica. (The story cited above notes that the company that built the rocket and satellite for NASA, Orbital Sciences Corp., suffered a rocket failure in 2001 while attempting to launch a satellite for monitoring ozone.)

As this NASA web page explains, the COO was meant to be “the first spacecraft dedicated to studying atmospheric carbon dioxide,” and for a period of at least two years, the device would have mapped the globe at intervals of once per 16 days, taking highly accurate measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The data is needed to explain what exactly is happening to the CO2 produced by human activity — researchers have long known that much of it is absorbed (”at least temporarily,” the agency says) by “sinks” in the oceans or on land, but don’t fully understand how and where this happens.

“An improved understanding of carbon sinks is essential to predicting future carbon dioxide increases and making accurate predictions of carbon dioxide’s impact on Earth’s climate,” NASA’s pre-mission material stated, going on to claim that space-based measurements could reduce our uncertainties about CO2 balance by a whopping 80%.

The cost of the destroyed satellite was over a quarter-billion dollars; a Mishap Investigation Board was immediately convened to investigate the cause of the accident.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The changing schedules of fall foliage may be a headache for nature lovers who time their forest vacations to maximize viewing of autumnal reds and oranges. But they could be good for the environment those travelers set out to enjoy.

According to a new article in the journal Global Change Biology, a team led by Michigan Tech forestry professor David F. Karnosky has established that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 “act directly to delay the usual autumn spectacle of changing colors and falling leaves in northern hardwood forests.”

Studying forests in Wisconsin and Italy and using an elaborate system that allows researchers to control the concentrations of carbon dioxide and tropospheric ozone within a given wooded area (the project was launched to help answer questions listed here), the team found that longer periods of green leaves resulted from higher CO2 levels. And longer green periods mean more time in which trees can soak carbon up. (Other researchers have already asserted that increased CO2 leads to earlier growth in the spring as well.)

Karnosky describes the phenomenon as “a good-news story for our region’s forests,” since trees have longer periods of productivity before taking a break for the winter. While the experiment was too brief to suggest how mature forests would behave in the long term, it’s surely welcome news for sustainable foresters to hear that what threatens the planet in one respect is at least helping their young trees grow more quickly — putting a dent in the very problem that keeps them green.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media