ENN: Environmental News Network -- Know Your Environment

Published yesterday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the article “Sharing Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions Among 1 Billion High Emitters,” compiled by numerous Princeton professors and researchers, among others from Harvard and abroad, is calling for new policy regarding international caps on carbon emissions. Instead of setting national caps based on total emissions per country, as is the current standard, the body of authors suggests instead to single out the 1 billion most emissions inefficient people in the world, and place caps on the emissions activity of the country based on that nation’s proportion of high emitters. The paper reported that its goal was to “propose a simple rule to derive a global cap on individual emissions and find corresponding limits on national aggregate emissions from this cap”, noting that “all high emitters [are] treated the same, regardless of where they live.” To assure their audience, the authors explicitly defined the terms of their new formula, stating that it is fair and equal because “countries with a larger proportion of high emitters do more, and countries with similar emission profiles have similar commitments,” essentially pointing out that wealthier, more green- capable countries will all be held to higher proportional standards of emissions capping.

But the team—which includes, an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, a mechanical and aerospace engineer, a physicist, and an economist—does not stop at capping emissions for and based on the most polluting 1 billion. They also seek to help the poor of the world as well, “addressing poverty alleviation and carbon emission reductions simultaneously.” Their plan, basically, is to exempt the poorest 1/3 of the world population from emission caps, and allow them to use fossil fuels to gradually elevate their standard of living. Said the report, these people will be allowed to use “diesel engines to produce first electricity for lighting, TV, the charging of batteries, gas for first motorized transport, liquid petroleum gas for first modern cooking fuel—where these technologies are the lowest- cost options.” Instead of a cap, there will be a floor placed on the emissions of this sector of society to ensure that their lives become more livable, while the other 2/3 of the earth has to comply with capping standards.

The team identified 7 major regions of concern for emissions—the US, China, OECD Europe, India, Africa, Russia, and the Middle East—and have placed stringent hypothetical caps on all but India and Africa, pointing out that the populations of these two are expected to explode by 2030 while the populations of the other 5 nations are projected to decrease. By using this method of emissions allocation, India and Africa will be allowed to increase their emissions to over six gigatons of carbon dioxide per year, while the USA must decrease theirs to less than two.

By taking from the rich and giving to the poor, this dynamic and diverse group of people has undoubtedly come up with a new approach to climate change and to reducing world poverty. However, some concerns arise: Will countries with so large a proportion of high per-capita carbon emissions be able to decrease their emissions by such a large margin in a relatively short period of time? Will this plan cause further outsourcing of American jobs to India and other countries that will be granted carbon emission floors? Is it a good idea to build developing world infrastructure around fossil fuels and risk dependence? What happens to the poor of a country like the US that will be hard hit by emissions caps because of the wealthy elite? Is any of this really fair?

To read the complete article, visit http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/07/02/0905232106.full.pdf+html

What do you think? Comment.

Although many environmentalists, including this one, have mounted a campaign against the meat industry because of its huge carbon footprint, ineffective energy practices, and questionable quality standards, we get that many of us aren’t willing to subsist on beans and soy for the rest of our lives. However, if you’re concerned about protecting your earth (and yourself!) from the harmful meat industry without actually limiting your own meat consumption, listen up! EAT LOCAL.

Massive meat companies are basically taking over the food industry, and the bigger they get, the lowertheir standards become when it comes to cleanliness of their facilities, quality of their meat, and treatment of their employees and their communities. Apart from the humanitarian and environmentalist streak that runs in all of us, think about these two factors: Swine Flu and Avian Flu. By overcrowding meat production plants and farms, these deadly viruses are more likely to occur because cleanliness is harder to control and a sick animal will have prolonged and increased contact with its peers. In her recent article “The Real Pandemic”, Sunita Narain highlights the atrocities committed by Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pig processor, in the town when the H1N1 virus claimed its first victim, a little boy. She also implicates several governmental processes and bodies—including the EPA—in allowing Smithfield Foods to dump waste into rivers, ignore the health complaints of farmers, employees, and residents of the area, and employ shady practices all around.

This brings to mind Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle, a 1906 novel centered around the corruption of the American meatpacking industry in the Midwest that, based on true observations, disgusted readers everywhere with vivid descriptions of the deplorable descriptions of factory conditions and practices. Although Narain’s article is not quite as muckraking, a theme and a motto emerge: If you don’t want to know how a piece of meat got from the animal to your mouth, you probably don’t want to be eating it either! When it comes to eating meat, stick to local, small farms—Most of these feature small, well (and sometimes organically) fed, animals that have been allowed to live on proportionally much more land than their factory counterparts. So, in order to help reduce the meat industry’s carbon emissions, prevent the shady doings of big meat producers, keep yourself and your family healthy, stimulate your local economy, and reduce the likelihood of animal virus outbreaks, stick to your farmer around the corner instead of the supermarket down the road.

To read Narain’s “The Real Pandemic”, visit http://www.downtoearth.org.in/editor.asp?foldername=20090531&filename=Editor&sec_id=2&sid=1

ENN wants to hear about your favorite local farms! Tell us below!

We have all experienced it—that pause in our television viewing where the screen goes blank and a “test alert” flashes across the screen to ensure that, if in the event of a true emergency, our televised warning would work. Televised early warning systems are just one way that our government warns us about an encroaching, dangerous weather event, and those events range from typhoons to hurricanes to flash floods to droughts. Here, by cataloguing every conceivable natural disaster and illuminating the specific early warning systems that work (or don’t) to prevent loss of life, the contributors to “Heads Up” have clearly proven to have done their research. They present two general hypotheses: First, that in order for early warning systems to work, they must be broadcasted effectively to an informed and compliant public by a prepared, conscientious, and proactive government. Second, that although the weather hazards that merit early warning systems are at times terrifying and fatal, they don’t compare to what might be in store once the larger effects of global warming begin. Indeed, in a rather coy way, the authors imply that many of the infamous disasters we have experienced stand metaphorically as the early warning system for global warming itself. The goal of the authors seems to be to encourage the public to be more responsive to early warning systems (EWS’s), to be more proactive in rallying for government efficacy in protecting citizens, and to be aware of the growing weather threats posed by global climate change.

This book has a dual voice, combining the complex vernacular of environmental and weather sciences with the easily read language of short case studies in natural disasters. In the book, the authors carefully go over the science of each weather hazard, explain the existing methods of early warning for each, and give an interesting case study of an ineffective EWS. (They cover hurricanes, cyclones, severe winter storms, heat waves, tornadoes, vector- borne diseases, fire, metropolitan air pollution, dust and sandstorms, floods and flash floods, and droughts). The compilers are very careful to spark reader attention too by using some of the natural disasters that plague our recent past, such as Hurricane Katrina, the 2005 European heat wave, and the 2005 Avian Flu outbreak, and they liken these events to terrorism. They also expose myths, give survival tips, and highlight societal changes that have lead to ineffective EWS’s.

In all, “Heads Up” is a refreshing approach to the climate change and weather studies because it uses illustrative and fascinating case studies to make its point, and captivatingly scary photographs of each weather event accompany each disaster’s description. Although we wouldn’t exactly call it light reading, “Heads Up” will certainly interest those who study the environment, are interested in their area’s weather patterns, and who want their government to be more proactive in protecting people like them.

“Heads Up!” is edited by Michael H. Glantz, Ph.D. and is a product of United Nations University Press. Michael Glantz is the Director for the Consortium for Capacity Building at the University of Colorado, Boulder, where he is also an international relations professor.

In this time of economic troubles, it is a great time to invest in products that will save you money in the long term, contribute to your healthy lifestyle, are good for the environment, and aremade in the USA. Although there is not yet one magical creation on the market that will eliminate your carbon footprint or transform your garbage to energy, there is definitely an emerging market for gadgets to help you take the steps to being more earth- friendly. Indeed, many of these are small steps for you but can potentially have huge impacts on the earth. One of these products is the EcoUsable Stainless Water Bottle, a light steel water bottle with a built- in filter that claims to filter tap, stream, river, lake, and pool water.

This product might be ideal for you if:

• You want to stop paying for highly polluting and expensive plastic water bottles
• You camp, hike, play outdoor sports, etc.
• You are traveling to a country with spotty (or no) water quality standards
• You are heading on a “staycation,” where sweltering beaches and amusement parks jack up the price of water and water fountains are unsanitary
• You live in your car (keep one in your glove compartment in case of an emergency)

Reasons You Want This product:

• There are many great colors to choose from
• The container is not easily damaged and is light, which makes it easily portable
• It will filter anything except salt water
• It helps save your money, health, and the environment by reducing the use and disposal of plastic water bottles.
• It is shipped to you in recyclable and eco- conscious materials

Possible Drawbacks:

• It doesn’t hold a huge amount of water because the filter is large—It would only be optimally useful if you were traveling short distances between refills
• Initial cleaning and care of the bottle may be a bit complex for some users, and accidental misuse could easily damage the product
• The filter needs to be replaced about once a year

Overall, the sleek design, portability, and sheer inventiveness of this product has us impressed. Although we might suggest a less complex, non-filtering water bottle for the everyday user, the convenience of the EcoUsable filtered bottle is irrefutable for travelers, parents, nature buffs, and athletes. (EcoUsable also offers a line of similar water bottles that are available sans filter, for you regular people out there who want to do their part to stop the plastic water bottle epidemic). Check both out at www.ecousable.com.

To many of us it seems as though the climate change debate is only a recent phenomena, and indeed, we have been positively bombarded by the media coverage of global warming in the past decade. Surprisingly, though, climate change speculation and study have been taking place for quite some time. In his recently published article in Weatherwise, a non-profit weather magazine, professor of geological sciences and contributing editor Randy Cerveny points out that some unexpected characters were just as concerned with weather change as we are now.

Any self- respecting history buff might guess that the foremost of our founding fathers to study climate change would have been Benjamin Franklin. It all adds up—he discovered electricity, invented bifocals, and constructed the first lightning rod. However, although Franklin was an outspoken student of weather and nature, Cerveny classifies none other than Noah Webster, lexicographer and founder of the modern Merriam- Webster Dictionary, as “one of the most strident investigators on the subject of early American climate change.”

In his intriguing Noah Webster: Lexicographer, Climatologist, Professor Cerveny points out the low and high points of Webster’s career studying climate change. The lexicographer had many rivals in the scientific field, among whom were Thomas Jefferson and Harvard professor Samuel Williams, who hypothesized that local weather patterns changed with the colonization of American settlements as forest was cut down and converted to fields used for crop production. Webster built on this concept when he noted that “the clearing of lands opens them to the sun, their moisture is exhaled, they are more heated in summer, but more cold in winter near the surface; the temperature becomes unsteady, and the seasons irregular.” Among his successes in climate change study also include his prediction that orbital changes of the earth alter long- term climate, a theory he anticipated, notes Cerveny, almost 200 years before it became known as fact.

Webster may have not received the credit he deserved for the observation of the urban heat island effect, the phenomenon that describes how cities are warmer than their surrounding countryside. Traditionally, this discovery is attributed to Luke Howard, a famous amateur meteorologist who published it as a footnote in hi book The Climate of London. However, Webster described the same instance in New York City 21 years prior.

Perhaps his most striking misstep in the process of climate study was Webster’s belief that the temperature of the earth had remained the same since the time of the Bible, a falsehood. Because of these beliefs, Cerveny calls Webster a “literary climatologist,” a man who used ancient Greek and Roman writings to formulate his modern beliefs. To close, Cerveny notes: “perhaps those of us who make weather and climate our passion and avocation might want to remember that… Webster also knew a thing or two about climate change.” In all, the article gives a surprising history of climate study, intriguing insight into the mind and contributions of a forefather of weather sciences, and the perspective that what we fear now has been recognizable for centuries.

Professor Randy Cerveny is a contributing editor of Weatherwise, a President’s Professor of Geographical Sciences at Arizona State University, and the author of the recently published book Weather’s Greatest Mysteries Solved! by Promethius Books.

On June 17, the White House’s United States Global Change Research Program published and publicly presented a study of the impact of global warming on America’s future in their presentation entitled “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States”. The purposes of the presentation were to encourage the public to make decisions to avoid future vulnerability and to inform the public about the consequences of action versus inaction.

Damaging changes presenters highlighted included a rise in overall global temperature, an increase in heavy rain, decreased snowfall and earlier snow melt (which will effect rivers), and an overall sea- level rise. It was noted that change is to be expected, but that if we can achieve lower emissions, the consequences will be far less staggering than if we were to continue on our current pollution trajectory.

Presenters went on to classify a range of possible global warming outcomes as either “higher emissions scenarios” or “lower emissions scenarios”, indicating what our country will look and feel like if we do nothing or act, respectively. Framers pointed out that inaction will result in population losses due to heat- related illness (which they pointed out would happen especially in cities). Representatives pointed out the alarming change in and damage to water resources as well as a projected decrease in agricultural growth due to increased heat, pests, diseases, and unpredictable weather in the American Midwest and other farming communities.

Another aspect touched on by presenters, one which stunned audiences in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, was the probable sea level rise that would devastate coastal areas and the many major cities in them. Florida was highlighted as one of the to-be most severely effected states, which would lose cities like Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Fort Myers to rising sea levels.

To close, experts outlined two major response strategies needed to prevent climate disaster. “Mitigation,” they explained, was “reducing the amount of climate change, for example, by reducing heat-trapping emissions or increasing their removal from the atmosphere”. Their second strategy is “adaptation”, or, “improving our ability to cope with or avoid harmful impacts or taking advantage of newly favorable conditions.”

To view the hour-long presentation or to download the power-point used in the meeting, go tohttp://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/newsroom.

Share your thoughts on this presentation or on the White House’s treatment of global warming issues below!

This Tuesday, CEO of Duke Energy Jim Rogers made an appearance on The Colbert Report, the left-leaning political satire show that has become a hit on the Comedy Central network. It could have been a landmark show, not only because it featured the coal company founder spouting the dogma of the environmentalist, clean- energy movement, but also because he held his own against the fast- talking, somewhat Socratic host Stephen Colbert (who recently shaved his head on a mock order from President Obama on a troop-supporting trip to the Middle East). Said Rogers, “our challenge is, how do we transition to a low- carbon world but keep our power affordable as we clean it up?”, while assuring a skeptical Colbert that clean coal is not, in fact, an oxymoron. Rogers, who claimed to have high standards for emissions, talked about potentially bright future of commercialized carbon sequestration (the process by which carbon emissions are inserted into closed underground spaces to prevent their entrapment in the Earth’s atmosphere), and emphasized his key point that “we have to invest in energy efficiency”. After Stephen Colbert feigned surprise that Rogers “believes in global warming” despite his professional affiliation with coal, which is his company’s main source of income, Colbert deigned Rogers “the environmentalist CEO”.

Do you think that satire shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show should do more to cover environmental issues? If you saw the show, what did you think of Jim Rogers’ appearance or of Stephen Colbert’s responses to his claims? Have something to tell ENN readers about carbon sequestration, clean coal, or other “environmentalist CEOs?” Share it!

Summer is officially upon us, and in the spirit of the season, we will be devoting several posts to the traveler in all of us. The green traveler, that is! In this our second post, we will be giving you tips on how to have a green road trip. Thought that was an oxymoron? Think again. In these difficult economic times and with the advent of the “staycation,” remember these green points when planning your summer jaunts.

• Find a destination that is not a long distance away from your starting point. It will save you gas, mileage on your (hopefully hybrid) vehicle, and, lets be honest, the fun in a tiny car starts to decrease after the first four hours.

• Buy local goods on your pit stops. Instead of hitting up the 7-11 for chips and a soda, find a local farm stand (they are EVERYWHERE) and try some fresh- pressed cider and homemade muffins, fruit, popcorn, or candy. Your body, your wallet, and your planet will thank you.

• Turn off your AC when you leave your house. Why keep it cool if you aren’t there?

• Bring a few re-usable water bottles that you can keep with you throughout the trip. Whenever you stop, wash and refill with fountain soda, or, even better, free water. This will save you from buying and wasting plastic bottles that will likely never decompose completely.

• CARPOOL. A road trip isn’t a road trip without people fighting over who has to sit in the middle of the back seat.

• Pack as light as possible, and use the air conditioning. Rolled- down windows and open sun roofs cause your car to be less fuel- efficient (because they hinder the aerodynamics of your ride), as does every excess pound you cram in your trunk.

• Consider renting a hybrid car for your trip. They use significantly less fuel, and run quietly, a plus for those who want to sleep in the backseat. Plus, renting a car is relatively inexpensive if more than two people chip in to help pay for it.

• Instead of souvenirs, take a ton of digital photographs. Who needs inefficiently- made tchotchkes cluttering up your house or room? If you absolutely must bring home things to remember your road trip by, pick up locally- made crafts, food, or artwork.

• Wherever you lodge, do as you would at home: Unplug lamps, stereos, appliances, etc. when you are not in the room. If you are staying in a hotel, opt to not have your linens and towels changed every day (keeping the “Do Not Disturb” doorknob sign on your door should do the trick)

• Stick to the speed limit! On the highway, your car is most fuel- efficient between 50 and 60 miles per hour.

Want to tell everyone the story of your green road trip? Found other ways to go green in your car? Share it!