Tag Archives: carbon

The Problem with Plastic Bag Alternatives

by Gabriele89V Posted on June 15, 2016

Plastic bags are a hot-button issue for environmentalists. Plastic bags are simply no good. In addition to the harmful chemical components of plastic, the material is responsible for a behemoth pile of waste, unappealing yet accurately named the Great Atlantic Garbage Patch, that stretches from the Virginia coast to Cuba, harboring 26 million plastic particles per square kilometer.

If this massive amount of plastic waste wasnt enough to turn you off from disposable bags, consider how they end up in our sewers, on trees and ingested by wildlife that mistake them for food.

All of those facts have to do with what happens to plastic after we use it. The single-use plastic bag has a very short usability span. According Environment Massachusetts, plastic bags are used for an average of about 12 seconds but they can take up to 1,000 years to degrade.

Finally, theres the environmental footprint of plastic bags. These stables of everyday American grocery shopping generate about 1 kg of carbon for every 5 bags used, according to Time for Change. Consider, then, that Americans use about 100 billion plastic bags per year. Thats 200 billion kgs of carbon per yearand were just talking about the United States.

Clearly, plastic bags need to go. But its not quite as simple as switching to paper or reusable bags, as Ben Adler argues in an article for Grist. Here are a few things we need to consider as we enact new policies to prevent against environmental degradation caused by plastic bags.

The Problem with Paper

Paper bags are often lauded as much better for the environment than plastic products. This is because paper is biodegradable and is therefore much less harmful to nature than plastic. A paper bag in the middle of the ocean is unlikely to cause any trouble to marine life or the composition of the ocean, as its made out of the same stuff as any natural plant.

However, as you probably suspected, deforestation isnt an issue to take lightly. We need the worlds forests direly. They offset carbon in the atmosphere, helping to curb climate change. They are also the homes of billions of species, which the planet requires for biodiversity.

Paper bags made from recycled materials are a great option in some ways, but not in others. In his article, Adler points out that paper bags, in fact, have a higher carbon footprint than plastic.

Very broadly, carbon footprints are proportional to mass of an object, David Tyler, a professor of chemistry at the University of Oregon, told Adler. For example, because paper bags take up so much more space, more trucks are needed to ship paper bags to a store than to ship plastic bags.

The Problem with Reusable Cotton

If youve ever shopped at supposedly environmentally conscious stores, youve probably been handed a complimentary green shopping bag at checkout (or been given the option to purchase one). Even aside from the idea of giving people goods that they wont necessarily use, this practice can be extremely wasteful.

Cotton isnt a miracle product. According to the World Wildlife Fund, cotton occupies just 2.4 percent of the worlds cropland, yet it makes up 11 percent of the global market for pesticides and 24 percent for insecticides.

The Best Solution

Because of these factors, many environmentalists believe that recycled plastic meant for reuse is the best alternative. Plastic that can withstand many uses and that isnt easily thrown away will cut down on waste while curbing carbon emissions and protecting forests.

The ideal city bag policy would probably involve charging for paper and plastic single-use bags, as New York City has decided to do, while giving out reusable recycled-plastic bags to those who need them, especially to low-income communities and seniors, Adler writes.

As for how citizens can best address the problem themselves, using reusable options is still your best bet. However, rather than purchasing cotton bags simply for grocery shopping, consider using a backpack or duffel bag you already own. No need to use resources for yet another bag when you probably have perfectly good ones lying around.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Link:  

The Problem with Plastic Bag Alternatives

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Problem with Plastic Bag Alternatives

Watch global warming spiral out of control

by DorotheaSeibt Posted on June 1, 2016

Spirograph

Watch global warming spiral out of control

By on May 31, 2016

Cross-posted from

Climate CentralShare

The temperature spiral that took the world by storm has an update. If you think the heat is on in our current climate, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

To recap, University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins wrecked the internet a few weeks ago with a revolutionary new way to look at global temperatures. Using a circular graph of every year’s monthly temperatures and animating it, Hawkins’ image showed planetary heat spiraling closer to the 2 degrees C threshold in a way no bar or line graph could do.

An update to the famous temperature spiral using future climate projections.Jay Alder/USGS

His tweet with the original graphic has been shared 15,000 times, and it’s been dubbed the most compelling climate visualization ever made (sorry, landmarked Keeling Curve). The spiral’s popularity can be attributed in part to its hypnotic nature and the visceral way it shows the present predicament of climate change.

Hawkins’ graphic hints at the temperature spiral to come, but now a new addition brings what the future holds into stark relief.

“Like a lot of people, I found Ed Hawkins’ temperature animation very compelling because it details observed warming from 1850 to present in a novel way,” U.S. Geological Survey scientist Jay Alder said. “His graphic sets the context for looking at projections from climate models.”

So Alder used climate projections and stretched the spiral to its logical conclusion in 2100 when most climate model projections end. Using our current carbon emissions trends, it shows that things could get out of hand pretty quickly.

The world has been on the edge of the 1.5 degrees C threshold — the amount of warming above preindustrial levels that could sink many small island states permanently — this winter and early spring thanks to climate change and a strong El Niño. If the world continues on its current carbon emissions trend, it could essentially pass that threshold permanently in about a decade.

The 2 degrees C threshold — a planetary “safe” threshold enshrined in the Paris Agreement — will likely be in the rearview mirror by the early 2040s as temperatures spiral ever higher. By 2100, every month is projected to be 5 degrees C (9 degrees F) warmer than it was compared to preindustrial levels.

It’d be a world vastly different than today with sea levels up to three feet higher (and possibly more if Antarctica’s ice goes into meltdown), rapidly shrinking glaciers, and highly acidic oceans. Those changes would have very real consequences for coastal cities, water resources, and ecosystems across the planet.

Of course, Alder’s super spiral is only one possible future for the planet. Last year’s Paris Agreement could be a turning point where nations start to rein in their carbon pollution. While temperatures would likely still spiral higher because of warming that’s already locked in, cutting carbon emissions now will at least make the spiral more manageable.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Read this article:

Watch global warming spiral out of control

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, Landmark, ONA, Paradise, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch global warming spiral out of control

Why I Am Vegan (And You Should Be Too)

by ClayRNIYizmc Posted on May 22, 2016

Since the vegan movement started in the 1940s, it has been mainly about ending the exploitation of animals. While veganism has grown in numbers throughout the decades, lets face it: most people simply dont care about animals enough to stop using them as food. But animal welfare is only one reason to go vegan. Other than the animals, here are some of the many reasons why I am vegan and you should be too.

Veganism Is Feminism

Veganism is based on the principle of speciesism, or the belief that no species (in this case, humans) is inherently superior to another species.

This concept is closely related to sexism, as well as racism, classism, ableism, heterosexualism, and the other isms that plague society. If you allow the belief that humans are superior to animals and thus it is okay to exploit them, then you make room for the belief that men are superior to women and so forth. To quote Alice Walker, author of The Color Purple:

The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.

Veganism Is Good for the Planet

Unless youve been solely tuned to Fox News, you are probably aware by now that global warming is a serious problem. The 2014 UN report on climate change said that we can expect famine, drought, and wars over resources by 2050 if climate change isnt halted.

While the media focuses on things like taking shorter shower and using public transportation as a way to curb the eminent doom that is global warming, they often fail to mention what really needs to be done, which is to change the way we eat.

It will be hard to meet the 2-degree goal no matter what; it will be impossible if livestock pollution isn’t part of the mix, Doug Boucher, PhD ecologist and evolutionary biologist and director of climate research and analysis at the Union of Concerned Scientists told CNN,

How bad is meat and dairy for the planet? According to FAO, 18 percent of global emissions come from livestock. Lindsay Wilson fromShrink that Footprintlooked at the eco footprints of various diets in America, and he found that the average American has a footprint of 2.5 tCO2e per year (tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) and a meat lover has a footprint of 3.3 tCO2e. By contrast, a vegan footprint is just 1.5 tCO2e!

Or, to put this in terms of water usage,1lb of beef requires 1,800gallons of water. Do the math and youll see that the water used to make 10 hamburgers is well over a years worth of showers.

Yes, you could quit showering for an ENTIRE YEAR and still not save as much water if youd just stop eating meat.

Veganism Is Good for Your Health

Yes, there are some nutritional issues about the vegan diet which need to be considered (but protein isnt one of them!). And, yes, it is possible to eat nothing but junk food and still be vegan. However, numerous studies have shown that the vegan diet is linked to numerous health benefits, including:

Lower Body Weight: People who eat meat are 9 times more likely to be obese than vegans.
Reduced Risk of Heart Disease: Vegans are 32 pecent less likely to get heart disease.
Diabetes: Vegans have half the risk of developing type II diabetes as meat eaters.

So, even if you dont care about animal welfare, go vegan for your fellow man (and woman) kind, the planet, and for yourself!

Image credit: Thinkstock

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Read article here: 

Why I Am Vegan (And You Should Be Too)

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why I Am Vegan (And You Should Be Too)

Science Says This Centuries-Old Discovery Will Save the Planet

by AnnetteGalindo Posted on May 2, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The United States leads the world in the number of electric vehicles on the road, but the count is still tiny: about 350,000. That’s less than 1 percent of all passenger cars and trucks in the country. Recent market research suggests that number will climb steadily over the next several decades. But will it climb fast enough? When it comes to fighting climate change, that could turn out to be one of the most important questions of the next few years.

On April 22, world leaders gathered in New York City to sign the Paris Agreement on climate change, in which they vowed to keep global temperature rise to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, a limit the world is already more than halfway toward exceeding. Meanwhile, energy experts have begun to map out the fine-grain details of what meeting that goal would actually require. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that electric vehicles have a indispensable role to play.

It turns out that one of the most immediate societal changes for average Americans in a climate-savvy future would likely be the electrification of just about everything. In other words, the hope of the planet could like in a force—electricity—we’ve known about for hundreds of years.

That might sound strange, given that electricity production is the number-one source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Coal- and gas-burning power plants are still our main sources of electricity, and in some parts of the country the power grid is so dirty that electric vehicles might actually cause more pollution than traditional gas-guzzlers.

But thanks to the explosive growth of solar, wind, and other renewable energy technologies, electricity is getting cleaner all the time. Over the last decade, the share of total US electricity production from renewables (including hydroelectric dams) rose from about 9.5 percent to more than 14 percent, with year-to-year growth getting faster all the time. So there’s a good case to be made for phasing out the other types of fossil fuel use in our daily lives—particularly gasoline for cars and oil and gas for heating buildings. We should be using electricity instead—even if that means using more electricity overall.

That’s a key finding of the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project, an international consortium of energy researchers that produced a detailed technical study of how to cut US greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2050—the change necessary if Americans hope to do their part to stay within the two-degree limit. The report found that it’s technically possible for the US to meet that target, at an annual cost of about 1 percent of GDP, without sacrificing any “energy services.” That is, the report assumes we’ll still drive and have houses and operate factories the same as we do today. But to do so will require a major boost in electrification—which will in turn require that the US produce about twice as much electricity as it currently does—while reducing the carbon emissions per unit of energy down to just 3 to 10 percent of their current levels. In other words, at the same time we’re electrifying everything, we need to continue to clean up the electric grid and double down on energy efficiency, especially in buildings.

“You can’t get to a level of emissions that’s compatible with 2C or less unless you do all three of those things,” said Jim Williams, one of the report’s lead authors and chief scientist at the private research firm Energy and Environmental Economics.

We get energy from fossil fuels in two basic ways: Either burning it in a power plant to create electricity that gets used elsewhere, or by burning it directly where it’s needed—i.e., your car’s internal combustion engine or a gas-fueled stove. Williams’ basic idea—which has also been advanced by other leading energy economists, particularly Stanford’s Mark Jacobson—is to axe that second category as much as possible, while simultaneously “decarbonizing” the electric grid by replacing fossil fuels with wind, solar, and other renewables.

Williams’ model doesn’t assume that all fossil fuel consumption goes completely to zero. A small portion of electricity could still come from natural gas plants; some oil and gas could still be used for manufacturing and industrial purposes; and airplanes, freight trains, and ocean liners may still rely mainly on petroleum. But by the middle of the century, the total “budget” for fossil fuels will become so small that they need to be limited only to uses that are absolutely unavoidable. Everything that can run on electricity needs to do so. Cars and buildings are low-hanging fruit. And despite gradual fuel efficiency improvements in cars over the last few decades, Williams said, there’s ultimately no way to make an oil-burning internal combustion car engine efficient enough to fit in the tiny fossil fuel “budget.”

“At some point you can’t continue to do direct combustion of fossil fuels, even if it’s efficient,” he said. “There is a point where you have to get out of direct fossil fuel combustion to the maximum extent.”

Ending direct combustion of fossil fuels would take a massive bite out of greenhouse gas emissions: Put together, buildings, transportation, and industrial uses account for more than half of the country’s carbon footprint.

In practical terms, the most important element of that transition would be bringing electric vehicles off the sidelines and into the mainstream. The charts below, from the report, illustrate what that transformation would look like. It’s important to note that these charts are not a projection of what the authors think will happen, but rather a prescription for what they think should happen. In the left chart, you can see that starting in the mid-2020s, sales of gas-powered cars (blue) fall off dramatically in favor of hybrids (red) and fully electric vehicles (gold). On the right, you see that by the mid-2030s, there are more electric cars and hybrids on the road than gas-powered cars:

DDPP

At the same time as this transformation is happening on the road, your gas stove will be swapped for an electric one; ditto the gas furnace in your basement. Gas stations will close and be replaced by charging stations. Machinery in factories that uses oil and gas will be largely replaced with electric equipment. Your propane or charcoal grill could be replaced by a George Foreman…you get the idea.

These are big shifts, but Williams said they probably won’t actually be very noticeable to most people. How much do you really know about what’s under your hood? Would you really notice if your basement held an electric heat pump instead of a gas furnace?

“The carbon aspect is in the guts of it that people don’t really look at,” he said. “The good news is that even if we continue to live like we’re living, we have the technology, we have what it takes to quit emitting so much CO2 to the atmosphere.”

Still, we’re not yet on pace to meet the goals laid out in the DDPP report. In a recent market forecast from Bloomberg New Energy Finance of global electric vehicle sales—a realistic picture of what the future actually holds, given current policies—global sales of electric and hybrid vehicles in 2040 are still only 35 percent of total car sales, instead of close to 100 percent in Williams’ model.

How do we get on track? Williams argues that policymakers need to start spending less energy worrying about fuel efficiency for oil-powered cars and focus instead on speeding up the transition to electric vehicles. That’s something the Obama administration has only scratched the surface of, so it could be an area of focus for the next president. Power grid operators, too, need to start planning for a future in which there could be major demand for electricity in sectors (i.e., electric cars, home heating, etc.) that are small now.

“We’re not used to having a whole lot of our electricity being used by sectors that currently don’t exist,” Williams said. “We need to already be thinking about that. If we don’t start planning now, we’ll run into dead ends.”

Have more questions about electricity? We’ve got your answers in this special podcast episode with our engagement editor Ben Dreyfuss:

Read this article: 

Science Says This Centuries-Old Discovery Will Save the Planet

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Science Says This Centuries-Old Discovery Will Save the Planet

China’s new 5-year plan is out, and it doesn’t sacrifice the environment for the economy

by EthelPamphlett Posted on March 18, 2016

Harvest in Yili, Xinjiang Autonomous Region. REUTERS/China Daily

China’s new 5-year plan is out, and it doesn’t sacrifice the environment for the economy

By on 18 Mar 2016commentsShare

On Wednesday, Chinese lawmakers approved the country’s 13th Five-Year Plan, the high-level document that will guide policymaking through 2020, including the country’s approach to climate and energy policy. As the world’s second-largest economy and the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China necessarily plays a role in shaping global climate policy — and if it can deliver on the goals outlined in the plan, that role will undoubtedly expand.

The plan is the first to set a national cap on energy consumption — 5 billion tons of standard coal equivalent for 2020 — as well as offering new visions for energy efficiency and air pollution. A World Resources Institute analysis concluded that this FYP sets China on a path to a 48 percent reduction in carbon intensity levels by 2020, compared to 2005 levels. (Carbon intensity refers to the ratio of CO2 emissions to GDP.) For reference, China’s pledge to the Paris Agreement has the country slashing carbon intensity by 60-65 percent of 2005 levels by 2030.

All told, it’s the “greenest Five-Year Plan that China has ever produced,” said Barbara Finamore, director of NRDC’s Asia program, on a press call.

Click to embiggen.World Resources Institute

There’s a lot more to the FYP than energy policy, but many of the other pieces are complementary when it comes to the climate. New standards on air quality indicators like PM 2.5, for example, will no doubt rein in the country’s rampant coal burning.

But it’s not all about coal, either. While China saw a cut in coal use of around 3 percent in 2015, it increased its oil consumption by 5.6 percent in the same year. “If China is going to peak its CO2 emissions, it cannot just rely on [cutting] coal,” said Finamore. “Transportation emissions and oil consumption are going to be exceedingly important.” And they are: The FYP addresses vehicle emissions and public transportation in cities, in addition to allocating new money to high-speed rail initiatives.

Advertisement – Article continues below

It’s easy to raise questions about China’s ability to follow through on these kinds of ambitious plans in the face of slowing economic growth. The FYP outlines a target GDP growth rate of 6.5 percent through 2020 — speedy by global standards, but a far cry from the 10 percent growth rate of yesteryear.

But that’s not the right way to think about it, said Paul Joffe, senior foreign policy counsel at WRI. “China envisions a ‘new normal’ level of growth,” explained Joffe to press. “At that level, they view the economic and environmental targets as entirely compatible.” In other words, anyone wildly gesticulating at China’s flagging growth rate needs to take a chill pill. Ten percent is simply not sustainable.

Joffe’s description of coinciding economic and environmental goals bucks the conventional economic logic that says “you need to consume more to grow more,” said Kate Gordon, a vice chair at the Paulson Institute. That logic is faltering. Earlier this week, the International Energy Agency released data suggesting energy-related emissions and global GDP growth are decoupling. Indeed, Gordon argues that China’s energy-efficiency savings have in part allowed for that kind of decoupling. As the economy transitions to a larger focus on services — which the FYP has growing from 50.5 to 56 percent of the Chinese economy by 2020 — and a lesser emphasis on industry, the split between GDP growth and emission trends becomes even more apparent.

A reasonably glaring omission in China’s FYP is the lack of an explicit goal for new renewable energy installed, though it’s conceivable that new goals for solar and wind capacity could find their way into the sub-plans that will be released over the coming months. Existing targets include 150GW of new solar capacity and 250GW of wind by 2020. Of course, it’s also not just about capacity, said Gordon. You’ve also got to get that electricity on the grid. In its Paris Agreement pledge, China committed to raising its share of renewables to 20 percent of its energy mix by 2030.

The plan’s ambition gives post-Paris climate-action further momentum, and can only serve to strengthen the recent U.S.-China climate pact. As with all ambitious plans, though, implementation will be key — and the country is outlining some stark transitions. Upwards of 1.8 million workers in the coal and steel industries are expected to lose their jobs due to changes outlined in the FYP, and those workers will need to be retrained and reemployed. Truly delivering on those goals will require an unprecedented degree of foresight and coordination.

Or to put it in Finamore’s own words: “It’s going to be tough.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

More: 

China’s new 5-year plan is out, and it doesn’t sacrifice the environment for the economy

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on China’s new 5-year plan is out, and it doesn’t sacrifice the environment for the economy

E.U. biodiesels could be dirtier than fossil fuels, according to new report

by Hyatt Monien Posted on March 15, 2016

E.U. biodiesels could be dirtier than fossil fuels, according to new report

By on 15 Mar 2016commentsShare

Switching to renewable energy is meant to decrease the level of greenhouse gas emissions — a message that someone should really pass on to the European Union.

A new analysis conducted by the Ecofys Consultancy for the European Commission shows that biodiesel from palm oil can produce three times the emissions of conventional diesel oil and biofuel from soybeans can produce twice as many emissions as diesel. It’s an important finding for the E.U., where countries are pushing for 10 percent of transport fuel to come from renewable sources by 2020.

The land-use impacts of palm oil and soybeans biofuels had a major effect on their calculated footprints. The issue is twofold: Large tracts of carbon sinks, mainly forests and peatland, are clear-cut or drained to make way for giant palm or soy plantations; and new land must also be cleared to grow food that could have been planted on plots now being used for biofuels.

The report was taken down shortly after publication and a source told the Guardian that its original release was delayed due to biofuel-friendly pressure. The industry has publicly pushed back against the study’s findings, with the European Biodiesel Board telling Biofuels News that the research is based on “a model which has still not been disclosed nor validated by peers.” The board called into question the academic validity of the report, arguing that other research conducted in California showed lower values for emissions from indirect land-use changes.

If the findings of the report are accurate, the E.U.’s transport directive could have a big impact on carbon emissions. The inclusion of palm and soybean biodiesel in the E.U.’s transportation goals would add two gigatons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, according to green think tank Transport and Environment — annually accounting for 2-3 percent of the Europe’s total carbon output. Transport and Environment director Jos Dings told the Guardian that biodiesel is “a big elephant in the room.”

Though soybean and palm oil are considered, even encouraged, as renewable energy sources by the E.U., they are, according to the research, changing the emissions of an entire continent. With that in mind, a different, stricter, version of the word “renewable” might be necessary.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading:  

E.U. biodiesels could be dirtier than fossil fuels, according to new report

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on E.U. biodiesels could be dirtier than fossil fuels, according to new report

8 Climate-Friendly Superfoods for 2016

by LamarMcLendon Posted on January 16, 2016

Superfoodsare gaining popularityand for good reason. They directlysupport the immune system, reduceinflammation, support mental health,pack a nutritional punch,and boost energy, stamina and longevity.

Here are eightsuperfoods to watch in 2016 that are not only good for you, but also good for the planet:

1. Crickets

Long-consumed in many parts of the developing world, crickets are makingtheir way into cookies, milkshakes and other food items in the U.S.Photo credit: Shutterstock

Crickets are loaded with protein. They also thrive in hotter climates and survive off decaying waste and very little water and space,Mother Jonesreported.For this reason, crickets and other insects havebeenhailedas the next climate-friendly superfood. They can be ground into baking flour or protein powder, and addedto cookies, brownies ormilkshakes.

While eating cricketsor any type of insect for that matterhasnt completely caught on in the U.S., its making progress. Last year, fast food chainWayback Burgersput outa fake press release as anApril Fools jokeabout insect-filled milkshakes, but the idea was so popular that theyrolled out theirOreo Mud Pie Cricket Protein Milkshake.

2. Pulses

Theyre the dried seeds of lentils, beans and chickpeasand the UN hasdeclared2016 to be their year. They already make up 75 percent of the average diet in developing countries, but only 25 percent in developed ones, according to the UN.

That could all change, though. Pulses contain 20 to 25 percent protein by weight, approaching the protein levels of meat, which average30 to 40 percent. They also require far less water than meat to produce.

3. Amaranth

Amaranth is a complete source of protein.Photo credit: Shutterstock

Amaranth is the new quinoa, trend expert Daniel Levine toldThe Huffington Post. Its a grain-like seed that cooks quickly and can be added to salads, soups and stews. Its a complete source of protein just like quinoa, and it is loaded withfiber,B vitamins andseveral important minerals. Additionally, its beenshownto reduce inflammation, and lower cholesterol levels and blood pressure.

4. Kefir

Kefiris the trendiestfermentedfood right now (sorry, kombucha and kimchi).Its high in nutrients andprobiotics, and is incredibly beneficial for digestion andgut health.Many people consider it to be a healthier and more powerful version ofyogurt.

To make it,grains (yeast and lactic acid bacteria cultures) are added to cow or goat milk. The concoction ferments over a 24-hour period and then the grains are removed from the liquid.

5.Teff

Sometimes written as tef or tef, this pseudo-grain (its technically a seed)has a high nutritional profile and a taste similarto that of amaranth or quinoa. Thisancient grainhas survived for centuries without muchhybridization or processing.Like most other ancient grains, its high in fiber, calcium and iron.

Traditionally cultivated inEthiopia and Eritrea, teff can be grown in a variety of conditions.Teff thrives in both waterlogged soils and duringdroughts, making it a dependable staple wherever its grown. No matter what the weather, teff crops will likely survive, as they are also relatively free of plant diseases compared to other cereal crops,Whole Grains Councilsaid.

Teff can grow where many other crops wont thrive, and in fact can be produced from sea level to as high as 3,000 meters of altitude, with maximum yield at about 1,800-2,100 meters high, the council said. This versatility could explain why teff is now being cultivated in areas as diverse as dry and mountainous Idaho and the low and wet Netherlands.

6. Moringa

Moringa can be ground intoa powder.Photo credit: Shutterstock

Its often called the the miracle tree or the tree of life, according toTIME. Its commonly found inAsian and African countries, and almost every part of itpods, leaves, seeds and rootsis edible. Its agood sourceof Vitamin B6, Vitamin C and iron. Not only does it pack a nutritional punch, its also afast-growing, drought-tolerant plantthat is a promising biofuel and medicinal source.

7. Kelp

Kelp grows super fast (up to two feet per day), and requires neither freshwater nor fertilizer. And rather than contributing to our carbon footprint, as many fertilizers and food sources do, seaweed cleanses the ocean of excess nitrogen and carbon dioxide,Mother Jonesreported. One kelpfarmer on the Long Island Sound evenclaimshesrestoringthe ocean while producing a sustainable food and fuel source.

8. Waste-Based Food

This isnt as weird as it sounds. In order to reducefood waste, restaurants are findingcreative waysto use the edibleparts of plants and animals that are often thrown out. Last year, award-winning chef Dan Barber held atwo-week pop-upat Blue Hill, his restaurant in New York City, where he cooked with spent grain, cocoa beans, pasta scraps andvegetablepulp.

Written by Cole Mellino. Reposted with permission from EcoWatch.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Link: 

8 Climate-Friendly Superfoods for 2016

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Sunwarrior, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 8 Climate-Friendly Superfoods for 2016

What’s the #1 Way To Reduce Your Carbon Emissions?

by DUJAmber74446 Posted on December 20, 2015

The Paris climate change summit focused the world’s attention on howcarbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are wrecking our world. Unfortunately, we all emit CO2 in the course of daily life. The message coming out of the summit loud and clear was…we have to emit less. The question is, where to start? What’s the #1 way to reduce your carbon emissions?

You may think it’s to drive less, since every gallon of gasoline burned generates 20 pounds of carbon. Put another way, every year, the average car in the U.S. is driven 12,300 miles, consuming about 67.8 million Btu worth of fuel, reports Burn: An Energy Journal. That’s a lot.

But it turns out that our homes actually are our biggest individual sources of emissions, given how much energy it takes to heat and cool themwhile usingall the electronics and appliances we do. That’s because, in addition to the 41 million Btu worth of electricity an average household uses on the spot, an additional 90 million Btu of primary energy needs to be produced at the power plant, says the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Heating and cooling account for almost half of your total energy bill, about $1,000 a year, says the U.S. EPA. So the first step you can take at home to reduce emissions should be to insulate attics and crawl spaces, as well as leaky doors and windows. You can caulk and weatherstrip. Or, replace old windows and doors with tight-fitting double or triple-paned versions. You can also cover up windows with insulating blinds and curtains. Attics, crawl spaces and possibly the space between interior and exterior walls, will also need insulation.

The best approach is to start with an energy audit of your home. Many utilities will subsidize the cost of the audit because they want to encourage their customers to save energy. Utilities may also refer you to a list of auditors you can trust to do a good job.

The most complete audit will take an infrared picture of your house to show you exactly where energy is leaking out. They’ll also know what the recommended level of insulation is for your region in order to reduce heat loss as much as possible.

Don’t wait for the audit to install a programmable thermostat if you don’t already have one. These thermostats automatically turn the heat down (or the AC up in summer) when you leave your home for work or go to sleep at night, saving energy and hundreds of dollars on your energy bills.

If you’re in the market for a new washing machine, dryer, refrigerator, furnace or other appliance, make sure to purchase the most energy-efficient model in your price range. You’ll also want to make sure that any appliance you choose meets ENERGY STAR standards for energy-efficiency. Over their lifetime, products in your home that have earned the ENERGY STAR label can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 130,000 pounds and save you $11,000 on energy bills, says EPA.

Again, many utilities give their customers rebates to encourage them to get rid of old models that waste energy. My utility company in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., for example, gave me a $100 rebate when I replaced my old refrigerator with a new one; they also gave me $50 to recycle it, and picked it up for recycling so I didn’t have to hassle with it.

EPA also recommends that you replace your five most frequently used light fixtures on the lightbulbs in them with ENERGY STAR qualified products. Both CFLs (compact fluorescents) and LEDs (light emitting diodes) use as much as 75 percent less energy than standard incandescents, but one of the things I like most about them is they last so long. Some LEDs are rated to last as long as 20 years!

If you want more ideas about where you can cut emissions, why not figure out your household’s carbon footprint? EPA has created this easy-to-use Carbon Footprint Calculator. It will give you a quick estimate of how much carbon you use based on using U.S. average values. But to get a more accurate picture, use your own utility bills. Once you actually look at how much energy you’re using, you might be more inclined to cut back.

By the way, even though your car may not generate the most CO2 emissions, what it generates is not insignificant. Shrink That Footprint suggests 11 smart ways to save fuel here. You can also calculate your car’s actual fuel efficiency by following these steps suggested by the U.S. Department of Energy at FuelEconomy.gov.

Related
10 Simple Things You Can Do To Save Money & Energy
10 Ways to Reduce Energy & Save Money in the Kitchen

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Link:  

What’s the #1 Way To Reduce Your Carbon Emissions?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Thermos, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What’s the #1 Way To Reduce Your Carbon Emissions?

Greenpeace wants to keep coal in the ground by buying up mines and power plants

by ReinaSherrill Posted on October 15, 2015

Greenpeace wants to keep coal in the ground by buying up mines and power plants

By on 15 Oct 2015commentsShare

Cheap coal isn’t usually good news for the environment. When fossil fuel prices tank, it’s a lot harder to convince governments (and the private sector) to invest in renewables. But if you’re Greenpeace Sweden, cheap coal isn’t so bad. Cheap coal means you can afford to buy a German lignite mine and a handful of coal-fired power plants.

But wait, you’re thinking, Greenpeace hates coal. Lignite is brown coal. What are they going to do? Just let it sit there? Avast, fools!

Wily, discerning reader, that’s exactly what they’re going to do. And it’s not an awful idea. A good way to ensure dollars spent on “keeping it in the ground” actually go toward keeping fossil fuels unburned is to buy a bunch of fossil fuels and keep them in the ground.

The idea isn’t completely new. Bård Harstad of Northwestern University described a similar supply side solution in 2012, and data analyst Matt Frost proposed a related coal retirement plan in 2013. Frost suggested that one way for the U.S. to curb carbon emissions would be to allow activists and energy sector competitors to purchase coal reserves from the federal government — the largest owner of coal in the country — with the intent of letting the reserves remain untouched. He writes:

Strategically shrewd “investors” in unmined coal, motivated by the desire to prevent its mining and prop up its price, would start buying up tracts with the most economically viable reserves and continue down the supply curve, ideally until the spot price for coal meets that of natural gas. This would encourage the fuel-switching that is already underway in the U.S., thanks to the shale gas boom and recent regulations restricting coal.

Frost’s idea is slightly different from that of Greenpeace Sweden in that it’s slightly broader and more forward-looking. All else held constant, buying up coal reserves (and not doing anything with them) should result in higher coal prices — which makes things like natural gas (and renewable sources) more competitive. Of course, gas isn’t a perfect solution, but it’s certainly better than coal, and you can also imagine eventually applying the logic to shale fields, as well.

Greenpeace may not have an eye toward the macroeconomics at play, but the main thrust of the argument is the same: A dollar spent on literally keeping fossil fuels in the ground is a dollar well spent. Frost’s proposal continues:

Today, a climate activist who hopes to convert money into carbon mitigation can choose from among several different bank shots, such as political engagement, purchasing carbon offsets, or investing in alternative energy. In all these approaches, uncertainty and complexity dilute the carbon-reducing value of each dollar spent. Buying undeveloped fossil fuel and preventing it from ever being combusted results in both the direct benefit of sequestering the CO2 and the secondary effect of nudging prices upward by reducing coal available to other buyers. Private citizens and philanthropists could use their own funds to lock up coal reserves and corner the market, rather than lavishing money on political operatives and consultants and launching advocacy projects of dubious impact.

Of course, plenty of variables are relevant here. It’s not immediately obvious that the owners of coal — at least, the federal owners of coal — are the relevant players, for example. Peabody Energy doesn’t necessarily care about what the U.S. government does with the 88 billion tons of coal reserves that it owns, because Peabody already has 8.2 billion tons of coal reserves all to itself; unless, of course, the U.S. magically sells off the entirety of its reserves to Greenpeace for pennies on the dollar.

Which is also to say that the effectiveness of supply side coal retirement plans depends on their uptake at a pretty massive scale. We wouldn’t expect the purchase of a single coal mine or plant to affect the entire energy landscape.

If anything, though, the policy is worth a perusal — and in the meantime, it’s encouraging to see NGOs giving the concept a shot in other countries. If anyone wants to go halfsies on a German coal mine, let me know.

Source:

Coal Retirement Plan

, MWFrost.com.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Advertisement

Continue reading – 

Greenpeace wants to keep coal in the ground by buying up mines and power plants

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, Citizen, Cyber, FF, GE, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Greenpeace wants to keep coal in the ground by buying up mines and power plants

You owe the world $12,000 for burning all those fossil fuels

by FelishaLawton Posted on September 8, 2015

Climate finance

You owe the world $12,000 for burning all those fossil fuels

By on 8 Sep 2015commentsShare

In the event those student loans weren’t enough to bring you down, a new study adds a hefty new bill to the ledger — and it’s of atmospheric proportions.

Writing in Nature Climate Change, H. Damon Matthews from Concordia University in Montreal argues that the fairest way to deal with climate finance (that is, of equitably balancing the international books in order to pay for climate change mitigation and adaptation) is to label individual countries as debtors and creditors and to calculate relative balances given their historic CO2 emissions. If you’re living in the U.S. or Australia, you’d owe a solid $12,000 under Matthews’ scheme: the atmospheric bill for all of those Furbies and Oreos and SUVs you bought between 1990 and 2013.

Well, you as in the person whose eyes are currently glued to Grist’s effortlessly compelling prose probably don’t owe anyone $12,000 (other than that loan shark), but you as in a representative humanoid slice of your country might. By benchmarking each country against an equal per-capita share of emissions over time, Matthews was able to calculate which countries had, given a 1990 starting point, emitted more than their fair share. New Scientist details his results:

He found that the US, for example, had over-polluted by a massive 100.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between 1990 and 2013 – amounting to 300 tonnes per person. That’s about as much as is produced by driving a family car from Los Angeles to New York and back about 150 times.

And according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, each tonne of carbon dioxide produced today has a social cost of about $40, so the overall debt per person is US$12,000.

That social cost, however, is a pretty arbitrary number. A social cost captures both private costs and externalities, and environmental economists still have little idea of how to price the latter when it comes to carbon emissions. While the EPA might use that $40 figure, a new study, for example, arrived at a social cost of carbon of $220 per ton, which would place the per-capita U.S. emissions debt from Matthews’ study at $66,000. Just to make sure we’re on the same page of the ol’ checkbook, that’s the difference between $3.87 trillion and $21.3 trillion. It’s this kind of variance that makes rigorously conducting (and defending) carbon pricing studies so difficult.

And while studies like Matthews’ make for clean numbers, it doesn’t mean anyone will actually take his advice. Climate negotiators like those who will be meeting in Paris later this year tend to play by their own political rules. Here’s more from New Scientist:

“Having followed the negotiations for 20 years I can tell you now the parties will not accept a neat allocation of responsibility based on this kind of metric, although I think this is one of the fairest,” says Robyn Eckersley at the University of Melbourne, Australia.

Eckersley says each country pushes for a particular metric that downplays their own responsibility. But that doesn’t make the analysis pointless, she adds.

“They help society look more critically at what each country is doing and how they are hiding behind their cherry-picked metrics. That’s a really useful function,” she says. “These kinds of documents make it easier for people to judge contributions and raise these issues at a national level.”

In the meantime, the world’s developed countries still need to figure out how they intend on dumping $100 billion annually into the Green Climate Fund by 2020. As of now, we’ve reached about a tenth of that goal. Color me pessimistic, Jonathan Chait.

And as long as we’re talking debt, let this post serve as a brief reminder that you still owe me that lunch money from ’06. (Not you, Jonathan.)

Source:

Everyone in the US and Australia owes $12,000 in CO2 emissions

, New Scientist.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

More: 

You owe the world $12,000 for burning all those fossil fuels

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You owe the world $12,000 for burning all those fossil fuels