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 And it’s already outdated.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

The Obama Administration, via the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), issued a wake-up call today, a massive report on climate change called Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S..

It concludes that the effects of climate change are here, they’re worsening and they must be dealt with soon if future generations are to enjoy ample food, water and comfortable living conditions

Quite simply, it’s a message about impending disaster. Average temperatures are getting hotter and could rise as much as 10 degrees by the end of the century. Our use of fossil fuels is mainly to blame. If we don’t stop polluting the air with heat-trapping gases, the ensuing climate changes will continue to promulgate drought, flooding, severe storms, stressed agriculture, thinning glaciers, earlier snow melts, rising sea levels, declining ecosystems and deteriorating air quality.

End of story. Literally. (For life as we know it.)

On the one hand this report, the work of 13 government agencies assembled under the USGCRP and directed by top scientists, is brimming with stuff you’ve heard before — about wacky storms, vanishing water supplies and imperiled croplands.

On another level, though, it’s a clarion call that is scary as Hades, which is about how hot its getting.

Furthermore, the 188-page report makes it official, we must act now, not later, if we’re to stem the damage: “Implementing sizable and sustained reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible would significantly reduce the pace and the overall amount of climate change, and would be more effective than reductions of the same size initiated later.”

Key point there, doing something now matters. Waiting might render the rescue ineffective. It’s that tipping point thing.

A coalition of environmental groups responded to the release Tuesday with a short statement concurring that urgency is the right stance. “Scientists are telling us that our climate future is in our hands. We’re seeing the effects of climate change now and we have the power to prevent it from getting much worse. We owe it to ourselves, our children and our grandchildren to address global warming and dramatically lower heat-trapping emissions as quickly as possible,” said the group, which included the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, 1Sky and others.

Read the U.S. government full report at the website, where you also can pull out detailed information on each section of the country.

Here are the key findings (with page notations where you can read more within the full text):

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.
Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)

2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.
Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow. (p. 27)

3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase.
Climate changes are already affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health. These impacts are different from region to region and will grow under projected climate change. (p. 41-106, 107-152)

4. Climate change will stress water resources.
Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the potential impacts varies. Drought, related to reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants, is an important issue in many regions, especially in the West. Floods and water quality problems are likely to be amplified by climate change in most regions. Declines in mountain snowpack are important in the West and Alaska where snowpack provides vital natural water storage. (p. 41, 129, 135, 139)

5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged.
Agriculture is considered one of the sectors most adaptable to changes in climate. However, increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production. (p. 71)

6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge.
Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected. (p. 111, 139, 145, 149)

7. Threats to human health will increase.
Health impacts of climate change are related to heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. Robust public health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts. (p. 89)

8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses.
Climate change will combine with pollution, population growth, overuse of resources, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone. (p. 99)

9. Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems.
There are a variety of thresholds in the climate system and ecosystems. These thresholds determine, for example, the presence of sea ice and permafrost, and the survival of species, from fish to insect pests, with implications for society. With further climate change, the crossing of additional thresholds is expected. (p. 76, 82, 115, 137, 142)

10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today. The amount and rate of future climate change depend primarily on current and future human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases and airborne particles. Responses involve reducing emissions to limit future warming, and adapting to the changes that are unavoidable. (p. 25, 29)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

How do cars pollute? In two main ways, through inefficient mileage (guzzling a gallon of gas every eight or 10 or 14 miles) and through tailpipe emissions.

There’s the pollution associated with manufacturing, also, but to keep it simple let’s stick with emissions and mileage. Obviously, both affect the air. Think of mileage as a measure of your car’s pollution volume over time – if a gallon of gas doesn’t take you very far, you have to burn a lot more gas — and emissions as the chemistry of that pollution; if the mix is particularly noxious, your car will be a bigger offender than one with better tailpipe controls.

So if you want to buy the cleanest car you can — in the price range you need — you’ll look at both factors. Fortunately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has already done this work, assigning a  “greenhouse gas” score to most models. Find it at the EPA’s Green Vehicles website.

The EPA’s “greenhouse gas” score considers how much a vehicle contributes to global warming via its full lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO2), and hydroflurocarbons (HFCs). The rating is mainly a function of a car’s gas mileage, but the analysis also looks at the fuel a car uses (gasoline, natural gas, diesel, ethanol) to factor in emissions.

Cars are given a score between 1 and 10, with 10 being the highest (the Prius solos at this rating) and 5 being not so hot (the Lincoln Town Car) and 3 (the GMC Sierra 15 gasoline model) being about as low as it goes. (The Sierra 15 jumps to a 6 on ethanol though.)

At the same site, the EPA chart also breaks out a column that considers just regulated tailpipe emissions — which doesn’t capture all the greenhouse gases and considers some outputs that aren’t greenhouse gases — giving each model an “air pollution score” as well. A diesel, say, might not score as well on this scale as it would on the greenhouse gas scale.

Interested in seeing just the EPA’s gas mileage ratings? Look to fueleconomy.gov, courtesy of the Department of Energy.

All week we kept getting these alerts from the EPA. First they wanted to tell us about the accelerated clean up of some Superfund sites. Next, they were trumpeting how they are (finally) going to test a bunch of common pesticides to see if they are endocrine disruptors. (Actually, they’re ordering the makers of these compounds to get them tested…but we’ll deal with that fox/hen house issue another time.)

I started to think, geez, would they ever leave us alone? Who do these EPA folks think they are anyway, government regulators?

Sure enough, by week’s end the EPA had gotten downright uppity. They’re now talking about how they’re going to regulate greenhouse gases. And you know what? I believe they can.

Turns out, the EPA is allowed to do stuff like this. That’s why they are called the Environmental Protection Agency. And here’s what they’ve got up their sleeve: On Friday, they issued a “proposed finding”  that “greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare” and that “climate change is an enormous problem”.

Ya think?

Kidding aside, today’s development, even though it’s a “proposed finding” that can translate into an actual finding only after a public comment period, is a turnabout of sentiment (albeit an expected one) that will be warmly welcomed by the bazillions of environmentalists and scientists who are gravely concerned about what is happening to the planet.

As for people who are worried that saving the planet will be difficult, costly and inconveniencing, the EPA tried to put the best spin on it.

“This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil,” announced EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, in the press release.

Well, we’ll see about that.

But back to those gases in our greenhouse here on Earth. We’re turning a corner here. This EPA announcement sends a clear signal that this agency will be regulating these gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) — at least during this Administration.

Of course the devil’s in the details. How do we seriously regulate these heat-trapping gases that have been building up momentum since the birth of the industrial era? By curtailing industry? Shutting down coal plants? Outlawing CAFOs? Ordering Americans to become vegetarians? Symbolically driving Hummers off a cliff? Locking our cars in the garage? Turning off our air conditioners?

This will be a tough one for Americans.

Happy Earth Day weekend.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

It turns out spam is not only annoying, it is bad for the environment as well. McAfee Inc. announced new research revealing how spam e-mail is damaging to the environment and substantially contributes to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).

The study calculated globally the annual energy used to transmit, process, and filter spam which totals 33 billion kilowatt-hours. That is the equivalent to the amount of electricity used in 2.4 million homes with the same amount of GHG as 3.1 million passenger cars using 2 billion gallons of gasoline, according to McAfee.

For one day in 2008, McColo, a major source of spam, was taken offline. The energy saved during that day was the equivalent of taking 2.2 million cars off the road.

The study looked at the global energy used to create, store, view and filter spam across 11 countries. It correlated the electricity spent on spam with its carbon footprint, factoring in the use of fossil fuels which are by far the largest source of electricity in the world today. The average GHG emission associated with a single spam message is .3 grams of CO2, which is the same as driving three feet. When multiplied by the yearly volume of spam, it is the same as driving around the earth 1.6 million times.

So what’s the catch? McAfee sells spam filtering software. Still, if their figures are correct, spam filtering (by them or a competitor) would save enough electricity to equal taking 13 million cars off the road.

Copyright C 2009Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

On Earth Day, Farm Sanctuary wants people to “eat green” as well. Farm Sanctuary, the nation’s leading farm animal protection organization, encourages people to reduce or eliminate meat and other animal products from their diet by raising awareness about factory farming’s negative impact on the environment. The group believes that choosing a plant-based vegan diet is the most ecologically sustainable way for people to eat.

The group will be involved in nearly two dozen outreach and education events on Earth Day. At the different Earth Day festivals, volunteers will man tables and hand out leaflets documenting meat’s devastating impact on the environment. The group will also hand out literature promoting a healthy, sustainable vegan lifestyle.

“People need to know how their food choices impact the planet, so during Earth Day, Farm Sanctuary will be getting the word out, and promoting vegan lifestyles as a key part of the solution to our environmental crisis,” said Farm Sanctuary president and co-founder Gene Baur in a statement.

A 2006 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report indicated that about 18% of total greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere are produced by modern animal agriculture. The report says the livestock sector is a major source of land and water degradation. The Farm Sanctuary says the animal agriculture industry consumes more than half the water and over one-third of the petroleum used in the United States.

The group also cites the large amount of pollution as another reason to start a vegan diet. According to EPA estimates, farm animal excrement has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states.  Farm animals excrete half a billion tones of manure, which is three times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population according to Farm Sanctuary.

To find out more about their Earth Day events check out their website.

(Photo credit: Keith Weller USDA)

Copyright C 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

MORE FROM GRN

By Diane Porter
Green Right Now

Next Monday, in what is billed as the largest mass civil disobedience rally for the climate in U.S. history, organizers expect thousands of people to join in a protest at the Capitol Power Plant in Washington, D.C.  Hoping to bring attention to the issues of climate change and green jobs to the new administration and new Congress, the protestors are expected from around the country, spurred on by support and videos from actress and activist Susan Sarandon and NASA’s James Hansen.

“We want to send a clear message to Congress and the Obama administration that Americans aren’t satisfied with the action that’s been taken on climate yet,” said Mike Crocker, a spokesperson for Greenpeace. “We need robust policies in place as soon as possible, certainly in time for (the next United Nations Climate Talks) in Copenhagen in December 2009.”

The Capitol Power Plant is the only coal-burning plant in the District. It is a major source of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and soot in a city that has repeatedly been found in violation of the Clean Air Act, according to a story in The Washington Post. Although half of what it burns is coal, it also burns natural gas and fuel oil. In the past, when an effort was made to eliminate coal from the fuels the plant burns, Senators Robert C. Byrd, (D-W.Va.), and Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky.), both coal-producing states, blocked the attempt.

Despite that history, however, the power plant was chosen more for its proximity to Capitol Hill and its symbolic nature. “It’s not by any means the dirtiest or most polluting,” Crocker said, “but it’s Congress’s, and it’s symbolic of the country’s missteps it terms of climate and energy, and the new opportunities we have to right the ship in the next year.”

Protestors plan to disrupt access to the plant by surrounding it and refusing to leave, risking arrest in the process. The organizers’ website emphasizes that it will be a peaceful demonstration, “carried out in a spirit of hope and not rancor.” They are expecting, at last count, more than 2,500 attendees “from the neighborhood, from across the country and from across the world,” according to Crocker. More than 90 different organizations have endorsed the effort, and the event expects Hansen, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, actress Darryl Hannah, singer Kathy Mattea and James Gustave Speth, dean of Yale University’s School of Forestry to attend. Sarandon is performing and won’t be there.

The Pew Center for Global and Climate Change says that reducing the greenhouse gases that result from burning coal is one of the most significant challenges facing those working on climate change. Coal use now accounts for about 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. But coal is cheap and plentiful, and the political issues surrounding it are deep and multi-layered. Coal plants in the United States are part of the country’s aging infrastructure; a third of them were built before 1970, and just 12 have been built since 1990. However, because of high natural gas costs and the political instability of nuclear power, an estimated 130 new coal plants are somewhere in the planning stages.

President Barack Obama  has made it clear that he supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, rely more on clean energy, and create more green jobs. So why such a big statement so early in the new administration?

“Clearly this administration is a breath of fresh air compared to the last 8 years, but there’s no time to waste,” Crocker said. “We of course welcome the priority that the Obama administration has made into climate issues, but there are a lot of powerful interests at play here and the politics are such that you can never take anything for granted.”

For more info see the Capitol Climate Action website.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media