Solar Power in New York

Archive for December, 2009

5 Steps to Living a Greener Life

Lots of people talk about trying to live a greener life, with some even going so far as to completely change their lifestyle, but most people aren’t sure how to go green because they don’t know exactly what that means. Sure, most people know the basics that scratch the surface such as reusing, recycling and reducing the amount of waste output for their homes but there many other steps you can take to move towards a cleaner, greener environment.

If you’re wondering how you can make your life greener, here are five different tips that are simple and easy to implement and that don’t cost the you anything.  All it takes is a little dedication and after a few months, these five little things will become second-nature to you.

1. The next time you go shopping use cloth bags at the grocery store instead of paper or plastic.  These cloth bags can be purchased for as little as a few dollars each and they’re much stronger than paper or plastic bags and will last you through years of use. 

These bags help reduce waste since most people throw away the plastic and paper bags.  The hardest part of using cloth bags is remembering to take them to the store, but once you get in the habit of using them, it becomes unconscious habit.

2. Replace your standard light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs.  These bulbs use less energy and last for four to five years, almost 15 times longer than traditional bulbs.  While the cost of a compact fluorescent bulb is more than your standard bulb, they easily pay for themselves over time requiring less frequent replacement and reduced energy consumption.  In fact, studies show that a CF bulb can actually pay for itself within one to two months.  One CF bulb also saves about five pounds of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide a month.  Replacing every bulb in your home can have a huge impact on the environment and on your wallet.

3. Use public transportation.  By car pooling, taking the bus, or using the subway you can cut down on the amount of gas you use and the amount of exhaust your car emits.  While it may be an inconvenience in some ways, it is one of the best ways of helping the environment.  Even better, walk or ride your bike to work if possible.  This not only saves you money and helps the environment but it also keeps you fit and healthy!

4. Adjust your thermostat by a few degrees.  By turning your thermostat down by just two degrees in the winter, you can save over 50 pounds of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide per month while lowering your heating bill.  Turning it up a few degrees in the summer can likewise save you money and save the environment. 

5. Finally, only wash your clothes or run your dish washer when you have a full load.  It wastes water and electricity to wash and dry only a few pieces of clothing.  In fact, if you can, try to wash your clothes using the cold water cycle as it uses up to 50% less energy than a warm water one. 

By just doing these basics not only you can save some serious money but you can rest assured that you’re doing your part for a cleaner, brighter future. To discover more ideas you can use around your home for living green visit http://www.greentipsforyou.com!

News Of Peletex Story

How to Report Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) – A Summary of the Pending GHG Regulations

The newly formed Obama administration has listed greenhouse gas (GHG) tracking and reporting as a major goal, with the objective of protecting the future of the environment by reducing today’s carbon footprint. If no action were taken, the makeup of the earth would significantly altered. Future actions will establish a market drive carbon cap and trade program to drive GHG emissions reductions.

Greenhouse Gas tracking is outlined in The Climate Registry Protocol, which details the requirements for mandatory monitoring and tracking. The premise around greenhouse gas tracking are included in the U.S. Clean Air Act, aimed at improving air quality and lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes mandatory reporting of the gases contributing to global climate change from about 13,000 facilities nationwide. These facilities account for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions within the United States and present a logical starting point for emissions reductions in the US. The regulation would cover companies that either release large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) directly or produce or import fuels and chemicals that when burned emit large amounts of carbon (CO2) gases.

One of the major focuses of the Greenhouse Gas tracking protocol is refrigerant gases used in refrigeration and cooling systems by numerous facilities, including manufacturers, food processors, retailers, grocery stores, office buildings, municipalities and hospitals, just to name a few. Because of their chemical makeup, refrigerant gases contain significant levels of carbon in the form of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Use of these compounds has been regulated under the U.S. Clean Air Act for several years.

Greenhouse gases absorb and release radiation into the atmosphere, setting off a global warming effect on earth. The intent and overall goal of GHG tracking relates to better collection and management of the emissions data now so informed decisions can be made about future carbon trading schemes. The tracking protocols also help government entities to more accurately inventory the amounts of emissions reaching the atmosphere. The new GHG legislation puts in motion the data collection, organization, and first stage reporting mechanisms to allow the US to accurately calculate and maintain a GHG emissions baseline across the entire economy. This will allow for better understanding today as well as to determine progress for future Cap and Trade programs. With this accurate information, it can be determined if the guidelines are effective in lowering the harmful effects of these substances to the ozone layer.

Greenhouse Gas tracking involves measuring direct and indirect emissions and keeping extensive records on its usage, maintenance, leak containment and disposal. Heating and cooling systems, as well as other energy consumption, are defined as direct emissions.

Better and more effective GHG management is an objective of the current US government. No longer will the US sit by and watch the world attack the issue of climate change. The US is now taking action to lower carbon emissions to the betterment of future generations. By taking no action, the earth’s makeup would significantly change, with humans and animals adversely affected and marine and plant life severely damaged.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) management and reporting is now falling under the EPA regulations contained within The U.S. Clean Air Act because the causes of global climate change is now well know. Human activities and the use of global warming substances, like refrigerant gases, are all leading to increased global warming. The substances are carbon dioxide, chlorine, bromine, nitrous oxide, chloroflurocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, methyl bromide, methyl chloroform, sulfur hexafluoride, hydroxyl, perfluorocarbobs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, fluorine, and the fluorinated gases hydrofluorinated ethers and nitrogen trifluoride. The mandatory law is aimed at reducing the use of these substances to lower the effects of global warming.

Beginning in 2010, GHG management, tracking, and reporting will be environmental law for the highest emitting facilities. Part of the management will revolve around better tracking and reporting of refrigerant gases. Entities must submit usage reports and service records for all refrigerants having high GWP. Special calculations are applied to refrigerants when any leads occur. The GHG emission reporting rules and related protocols allow for progressive companies to take advantage of software already created to help with carbon emissions reporting. Some web applications allow organizations to track GHGs to the asset level across global, distributed facilities.

Software provided by Verisae tracks carbon dioxide (CO2) gas emissions according to The Climate Registry protocols across all sites so companies can manage their carbon emissions and work towards reducing their carbon footprint. To learn more effective refrigerant management tactics and the tools, you can research http://www.Refrigerant-Tracker.com

Notices For New Technology

GM Foods Against

Genetically modified (GM) foods are not being found to be safe for humans, or for the environment. There are a number of reasons why there a growing number of people are against GM foods. Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe? The reason to resist the growth of GM food in our diet is that it has a negative impact on our environment; plants and animals grown organically are not distorting their genetic makeup.

And in the rush to accelerate the production of genetically modified foods, scientists are short cutting testing methods. Recently, the United States Tufts University, School of Medicine was involved in testing the effects of genetically modified rice directly on children (by-passing the usual practice of testing on animals). This direct testing on children created controversy and a formal letter of protest from 22 international scientists to the University; the protest letter has been made public through various social media. 
 
The letter protested the use of children as a breach of medical ethics code since children cannot legally give their consent (since it is not deemed to be informed consent) to participate in experiments. As Professor David Schubert, Salk Institute of Biological Studies said, “…it is completely immoral to feed this rice to children without proper safety testing … [i]t’s like putting a new drug on the market with no toxicology or safety trials”.
 
In defense of their position, the Golden Rice Organization issued a press release that states they “…us[ed] the correct Chinese and US government approved processes, the trials in China went ahead last year with the formal approval of their parents and the understanding of the children”.   How do children understand the impact of genetically modified food on themselves or the environment? It’s a complex subject that many adults have a hard time understanding. Also, how can anyone (parents, children, or testing scientists) understand what the long term effects of genetically modified “golden rice” are on the human body without prior study or testing? 
 
More importantly, will the overall risks of genetically modified foods over time out weigh the alleged benefits? Farmers have cross-bred plants and animals for hundreds of years to improve their products. Improvements to size, produce yield, taste, hardiness have been achieved through relatively natural means and within nature’s own boundaries; different species were not bred together.
 
With the discovery of DNA and a method of gene extraction, the concept of genetic modification was born. The intent of genetic modification is to create food that grows quickly, yields much, is resistant to pests, to disease, and to other natural events. However a number of scientists respond that the benefits are not worth the risks; genetically modified foods often become resistant to herbicides and pesticides requiring ever increasing amounts. There is the suspicion (still unproven) that pollinating bees have been affected by the increasing use of these chemicals and that both pollinator and predator species have been affected by the genetically modified crops (also known as transgenic crops) through habitat destruction and use of dangerous herbicides and pesticides. 
 
Since the introduction of genetically modified foods, some scientists are reporting that food-related illness has increased. The only published human feeding study confirmed that genetic material in genetically modified soy transferred into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and continued to function. What long term impact will these foods have on the population and the environment?  There are many more potential risks in the development of genetically modified foods. Animals that were fed genetically modified feed appeared to suffer from increases in fetal death, low birth weight, sterility, and more. The concern is that human reproductive failure and sterility or infertility will be long term consequences to using GM foods.
 
In the US, the Department of Agriculture reports that cotton and corn crops have been genetically modified to produce their own Bt toxins since 1996. Bt modified crops are insecticidal crystal proteins and are considered effective against crop-damaging caterpillars. The toxins are considered important for pest control and since resistance to herbicides and pesticides is growing, the sentiment is that these genetically engineered Bt toxins will help to protect the crops. The issue with the GM Bt toxins is that they are considered serious allergens; ever wonder why so many more children and adults are exhibiting allergic reactions than ever before?
 

The problem with genetically modified foods is that there is also a reaction for the action; unfortunately, globally, in our rush to grow food supplies, we have not taken the time to properly test and research the long term impacts and effects of genetically modified foods. It is easy to be against GM foods - our planet is at risk.

To read more about genetically modified foods and the healthy alternative – organic foods, please visit Is Organic Food Better?
Kris Bovay is the owner of Voice Marketing Inc, the business and marketing services company, with a difference. She is also the owner of a small business website, more-for-small-business.com and an organic food website, Organic Food For Everyone. Kris has 25 years of experience in leading large, medium and small businesses … and a life-long passion for healthy food and a healthy environment. Copyright 2008 – 2009 Voice Marketing Inc.

AT&T Tech ChannelFor Green Computing

A Carbon Footprint is Impacted by Fugitive Refrigerant Gas Emissions

The United States and a host of other foreign countries are focusing on fugitive emission tracking for certain industries. The goal is to identify the amount of substances that are emitted into the atmosphere when a refrigerant gas leak occurs. This will give government officials at the EPA a better understanding of the amount of greenhouse gases harming the environment each year and contributing to global warming due to the ineffective management of refrigerant gases.

Fugitive emission takes place when an unexpected leak of a hazardous substance occurs in a system and the discharge is not contained in a vent, stack, or duct. This may be caused by a component failure, poor servicing, or a breakdown in some industrial process. When a system containing refrigerant leaks, these high global warming potential substances cause damage to the atmosphere. Certain refrigerant gases are not broken down in the atmosphere and end up entering the stratosphere and destroying the protective ozone layer over time.

Across the U.S. economy, refrigerant gases or fugitive emissions equal over 300K tons of carbon dioxide each year. Other countries have similar or worse outputs. Many environmental regulations, such as The Montreal and Kyoto Protocols, exist to reduce the escape of harmful substances, like refrigerants, into the atmosphere over time. There are additional goals to reduce the potential for global warming in the near future and to improve air quality in the long term by reducing the emissions refrigerant gases.

A select few refrigerant gases have multiple detrimental effects on the environment. Not only are they ozone depleting substances but they are also chemicals with a high global warming potential (GWP) which places them into the category of greenhouse gases which lead to global climate change. For many reasons, it is important to effectively monitor, track, and report refrigerant gas usage.

The EPA has finalized its rules pertaining to any fugitive emission occurrence, whether through evaporation or a leak. The regulations apply to several industries, including existing and newly constructed facilities with systems using refrigerant gas in their workplace heating and cooling systems. Other industries are industrial chemical manufacturing, electric services, pulp and paper mills, and petroleum refinancing.

Tracking fugitive refrigerant gases is required by facilities owning or operating HVAC-R systems or by manufacturers who produce them. The EPA has identified a number of dangerous compounds, among them chloroflurocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, methyl bromide, halons, methyl chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride.

A particular concern for fugitive emission problems is with refrigerant gas, because it contains chloroflurocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons, two primary contributors to the weakening of the ozone layer and the increase in greenhouse gas volumes. Furthermore, refrigerant gas is used across many industries in refrigeration and cooling units, ventilation and air conditioning systems, and fire protection systems.

When a fugitive emission occurs, businesses are required to track the refrigerant leak rates and report annul refrigerant usage it to the EPA. One of the primary emissions scopes, fugitive refrigerant gas emissions are an integral part of an organizations carbon management requirements. Of the utmost importance is the determination of the HVAC-R system that is leaking and the capturing of the service event detail related to fixing the leak. Systems containing refrigerant gases must be inspected by EPA certified technicians and all service events must be logged when refrigerants are handled.

The new fugitive emission regulations provide a more standardized approach to thresholds identified by the U.S. Clean Air Act at the direction of the EPA. These include continuous monitoring, tracking of leaks, and reporting of leak repair, and containment.

Web applications and specialized tools can increase an organization’s efficiencies related to HVAC-R system maintenance, improve accuracy of refrigerant inventories thus saving money, and turn manual processes into a centralized, automated work flow. Development firms who specialize in the area. They ensure compliance and reduce the likelihood of substantial fines.

Daniel Stouffer, Product Manager at Verisae, has more information about fugitive emissions management. Refrigerant Tracker makes it easy to monitor, manage, and report refrigerant gas usage across multiple locations. Learn more at: http://www.Refrigerant-Tracker.com

2008 - Going Green Tech News

Germ of an Idea – A Modern-Day “Roman” Aqueduct For Florida

The west coast of Florida remains trapped in an ongoing drought. In Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties (Tampa and St. Petersburg/Clearwater) severe restrictions on water use are in place. Even the use of reclaimed water for lawns and gardens is now restricted. The rainy season is not yet here; but in past years the amount of rainfall received during the wet months was far below the historical average, so that reservoirs and ground water supplies have never had a chance to recover.

The situation is quite different in northern Florida, in the Panhandle and all across the State close to the Georgia border. The weather in those parts of the State is generally wetter, and more consistently so, than the weather farther south.

Yesterday, our local St. Petersburg Times carried a story (with photographs) of the damage which is now being inflicted in Madison County (which borders Georgia) by floodwaters from the Withlacoochee and Suwannee Rivers. The storms which produced the rain moved from west to east across the Panhandle over the past week, to the point at which the Withlacoochee crested at 89 feet, four feet above the record set in 1948. So far, the rising floodwaters have destroyed or caused severe damage to almost 200 homes and lesser damage to 500 more, all areas combined. Two people are known dead, and one person is missing.

Quite apart from the possibility of reducing the tally of deaths, personal injury, and property damage which even a partial remedy for river flooding in these areas might entail, it boggles the mind just to consider the sheer waste of so much fresh water. Most of that damaging flood water will be gone forever as it eventually finds its way to the Gulf of Mexico. That’s a shame, because so much of it could be put to good use in the west coast, central, and other parts of the State where it is so desperately needed. The waste is not just limited to damaging flood waters, either. The “top of Florida” is blessed with more rainfall, on average, than it needs. Obviously, the flow of river water into the Gulf represents a volume of water which has not been put to good use.

In passing, we acknowledge that the flow of a certain amount of river water into the Gulf is said to be necessary for the health of the shellfish beds near the coastline.

Even so, it seems inadmissible to stand by and do nothing but watch a surfeit of water in the northern counties lay waste and then go to waste while there is such a great need for water in other areas of the State. Surely there is a partial remedy which might ameliorate the problems in the affected sections.

The Romans found a way to move big volumes of water over considerable distances. Surely we can build on their success – and on successes over the centuries since that time – by constructing an Aqueduct system to bring excess water from the northern Florida counties to drier areas to the south.

The best part is that the right-of-way is already in place! It’s called Interstate 10 and Interstate 75. Take a peek at a map of Florida. Find the intersection of I-10 and I-75. The Suwannee and Withlacoochee Rivers are close by, as are other rivers. There are others to the west, and I-10 probably crosses every one of them.

Excess water could be fed into the Aqueduct lying above-ground or underground in the median of I-10 at various points along its route, and then fed south toward Tampa and St. Petersburg/Clearwater in that part of the Aqueduct lying within the median of I-75 and I-275. Do you see how obvious that is?

If ever there was a perfectly-planned right-of-way for a particular purpose, although not part of the design at the outset, this is it.

There would be hurdles. There always are. Will and determination were invented for the purpose of overcoming hurdles.
It seems to me that the construction and operation of The Florida Aqueduct is an undertaking which private capital should undertake. It need not cost the State a penny.

Let’s see whether anyone steps up to the plate.
.,.,.,.,.,.
William Kurtz

Palm Harbor, Florida

April 11, 2009

The author is a retired corporate CEO and attorney, and a long-time investor. He has passed the NASD Series 65 Investment Adviser exam. He publishes his Investment Newsletter and Action Suggestions three times per week at http://www.candlewave.com/ The Action Suggestions provide specific Safety Stops on major Indexes; a review of the major Indexes; an individual review of each of the Gold, Silver, and Crude Oil markets; an individual review of each of the Dow 30 stocks and of selected non-Dow stocks; a review of five popular Forex pairs; and his Daily Commodities Report. The Daily Commodities Report is also available as a free-standing service at http://www.commoditiesjunction.com/ The Operating Manual for his copyrighted “Candelaabra” technical analysis trading system for all financial markets is also available through its own website at candlesticksonsteroids.com and via info@candlewave.com

“Candelaabra” rides atop Genesis Financial Technologies’ “Trade Navigator” © platform. “Trade Navigator” with the “Candelaabra” overlay, and data feed, are available directly from Genesis by arrangement with CandleWave, LLC. in a joint risk-free 30-day trial of Trade Navigator and of Candelaabra.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=William_Kurtz

Hybrid SUV

Green Racing Car

LEED Schools In Houston Get More Than an E For Effort

We send our children to school every day and ask them to learn. They are, after all, the future of our world; and so we ask them to learn about right and wrong, learn about the world, and learn how to take care of each other. But do we want them to learn how to take care of the world, too?

That is what LEED Green Building schools in Houston and around the nation are doing. They are teaching the children, through example, what it means truly to earn an A for awareness of the environment’s needs. They stand for the future of America as a benchmark of creation care.

LEED Green Building schools are K-12 schools that are tailor-made to produce an environment safe and healthy for children, comfortable for teachers, cost-effective for the taxpayers, and easy on the environment. By addressing the uniqueness of school spaces and children’s health issues, LEED for Schools provides a unique, comprehensive tool for schools that wish to build green with measurable results. The rating system addresses issues such as classroom acoustics, daylight and views, mold prevention, and environmental site assessment.

In addition, Green schools cost less to operate, freeing up resources to truly improve students’ education. Their carefully planned acoustics and abundant daylight make it easier and more comfortable for students to learn. Their clean indoor air cuts down sick days and gives our children a head start for a healthy, prosperous future. And their innovative design provides a wealth of hands-on learning opportunities.

No longer must they learn through books about environmental safety and/or green projects around the world. Instead, they can learn hands-on at school – through observation and through practice.

Houston has taken the lead around the nation in building green schools. The Houston chapter is dedicated to showing school district leaders how the LEED FOR SCHOOLS process can benefit them. Other leading organizations in the area are also committed. Earlier this year, the Houston-Galveston Area Council joined with the Houston chapter to produce a year-long symposia to educate the public and educators about the facts and costs for LEED FOR SCHOOLS.

They ideally will have all their schools “Go Green” over the course of the next 10 years.

Other cities are following their lead. Salt Lake City, Grand Rapids and Seattle are all among the top cities with at least three green schools. And more are being built monthly. Both students and parents, teachers and administrators see the need and the benefits for green schools, and are lobbying for all school to change their ways.

For students and teachers, green schools mean reduced incidence of asthma, decreased absenteeism, improved academic performance and increased teacher satisfaction. For parents, green schools offer the confidence that comes with knowing their children spend their days in an environment that is both healthy and conducive to learning.

Green Schools get more than an E for effort. They are the bright and healthy future for our children.

Copyright 2009 – 2010 theLEED.com and Green Efficient. Article may be reproduced, unchanged, as long as it retains author information and linking.

Rick Walker is the CEO of Green Efficient. GreenEfficient is the leader in the LEED building maintenance and operations market. Primarily serving Texas, their LEED Accredited Professionals (LEED-APS) manage commercial facilities using their integrated services portfolio of LEED-compliant janitorial services, Integrated Pest Management services, HVAC maintenance, lawn care services, purchasing oversight, occupant training and USGBC submittal services. Offices in Houston, Austin, Dallas and Corpus Christi enable the most active Texas LEED construction markets to be covered by their specialty services. For information on LEED, green building and sustainable products, visit their blog: theLEED

Water Efficiency The Resource Matrix Part 2 of 4

Last week, we introduced you to the Resource Matrix, which is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

We showed you how economics leads to people maximizing their benefits in “win-lose” propositions: you want diamonds and gold for nothing and they want to give you useless junk for a king’s ransom. And how we’ve been hypnotized in believing what they want is also what we want.

But the scales have been falling from our eyes, we’re beginning to see the truth, and the power has been shifting away from the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd:

• Do-gooders have increased our awareness and worked to change deals from “win-lose” to “win-win”
• There is no “free lunch:” finite energy resources will run out; actions have consequences, and the consequences of our actions are already visible, rather scary, and quite irreversible; and that the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd hasn’t been telling the truth

We now realize we’re all in this together: we have greater awareness of our actions and the desire to change, and have ways to change.

Hallelujah and Praise the Collective!

Today, we introduce the resource called water, its parallels with fossil fuels, and its role in global warming.

None of this is to dismiss or diminish the contribution of fossil fuels in global warming. Hey, just like the Special Olympics, if you participate, you get a medal. We just think that gold-medal winner Fossil Fuels has stolen the spotlight, letting silver-medalist Water Use keep us hypnotized in believing that water is a free lunch, and that nature will clear up polluted waters while getting away with breaking the rules.

Water, water, everywhere,
not a drop to drink.

According to our friends at How Stuff Works, who I wrote about sarcastically for their oxymoronic clean coal article in discussing how true public relations stuff really works, gives us this data:

• 98% of the planet’s water is in the oceans. It’s salt water – we can’t drink it or irrigate our crops with it.
• 2% is usable. Of that 2%:
  • 80% is locked up in polar ice caps and glaciers
  • 18% is underground in aquifers and wells
  • 1.8% is in lakes and rivers
  • 0.2% is elsewhere: either floating in the air as clouds and water vapor, locked up in plants and animals (and your body), and in foods and beverages.

Okay, so 20% of the usable water (only 0.4% of all water on Earth) is accessible, right?

Well . . . no. Many of the aquifers, wells, lakes, and rivers have been sucked dry like a once-juicy fly carcass in a spider’s web. (The 18% and 1.8% you see above is like the money in the Social Security Fund: there actually is nothing there.)

And many of those water sources that do still have a drop to drink are worse than the ocean’s salt water. Drink salt water and you’ll need to yawn into a bucket. Drink this water and you’ll kick the bucket.

And I know you aren’t asking this burning question:

“So . . . global warming to release fresh water from ice caps and glaciers is a good thing, no?”

Percentage this, percentage that.
Talk my language, will you?

I know I’m pulling the disgusting old government trick: drowning you in an ocean of water statistics.

So let’s make it plain and simple:

You bring in $10,000 a month. You’re also living high on the hog and doing your personal best to outshine every bling-bling Hip Hopster Musical Artist in materially conspicuous consumption:

• $9800 goes to the McMansion mortgage and gold-plated Rolls Royce lease
• $160.00 goes to investments in clothing and accessories
• $0.40 has been lost in the sofa cushions
• $39.60 a month is for everything else: food, phone and electric bills, income taxes, and all the other non-essentials: Don’t spend it all in one place!

Aquifers and wells and lakes and rivers:
Dry or polluted, oh my!

Fred Pearce, author of When the Rivers Run Dry, helps us quickly understand it:

We can all save water in the home. But as laudable as it is to take a shower rather than a bath and turn off the faucet while brushing our teeth, we shouldn’t get hold of the idea that regular domestic water use is what is really emptying the world’s rivers. Manufacturing goods … consumes a certain amount, but that’s not the real story either. It is only when we add in the water needed to grow what we eat and drink that the numbers really begin to soar. (emphasis mine.) (Fred Pearce, When the Rivers Run Dry, Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. p 3)

Here are a few numbers he gives:

• to grow a pound of rice: 250 to 650 gallons of water
• to grow a pound of wheat: 130 gallons
• to produce a quart of milk: 500 to 1000 gallons
• to produce a pound of cheese: 650 gallons
• to produce a 1/4 pound of burger: 3000 gallons

He kindly puts water use into perspective in annual terms:

• 1 ton (265 gallons) for drinking
• 50 to 100 tons (13,250 to 26,500 gallons) around the house
• 1500 to 2000 tons (397,500 to 530,000 gallons) for food and clothing

—————————————–

sidebar:
How Many Gallons to Produce One Pound of Beef?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics

US Beef industry’s Cattlemen’s Association: 441 gallons
Fred Pearce: 12,000 gallons
Water Footprint Network: 1854 gallons (calculations: 15500 litres of water per kg; 4079 gallons per kg; 1854 gallons per pound)

In an industrial beef production system, it takes an average three years before the animal is slaughtered to produce about 200 kg of boneless beef.

The animal consumes nearly 1300 kg of grains (wheat, oats, barley, corn, dry peas, soybean meal and other small grains), 7200 kg of roughages (pasture, dry hay, silage and other roughages), 24 cubic meter of water for drinking and 7 cubic meter of water for servicing.

This means that to produce one kilogram of boneless beef, we use about 6.5 kg of grain, 36 kg of roughages, and 155 litres of water (only for drinking and servicing).

Producing the volume of feed requires about 15300 litres of water on average.

—————————————–

Where does all that water come from?
From virtually everywhere

If it comes from imported goods (Thai rice or Egyptian cotton), the water comes from those countries.

When the water is collected from rivers or pumped from underground, as it is in much of the world, it’s:

• increasingly expensive
• increasingly likely to deprive someone of water (nothing to drink)
• increasingly likely to empty rivers and underground water reserves

And when the rivers are running low, as they are more frequently, there is less water to grow anything at all.

The water used in growing and producing goods around the world is known as “virtual water” and the trade of these goods is known as “virtual water transfers.”

And who’s the biggest water exporting Mouseketeer of them all? The United States.

When you drink coffee from Central America, you are influencing the hydrology of the region, virtually taking a share of the Costa Rican rains. The same is true within a national and regional boundaries. The Colorado River is drained so Californians can eat their Big Macs and have friends over for a Sunday afternoon barbecue.

In the same way that your use of fossil fuel is measured as a “carbon footprint,” your water use, actual and through virtual water transfer, is measured as a “water footprint.”

How big is my water footprint?
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours

Arjen Y. Hoekstra, professor at the University of Twente, the Netherlands, introduced the water-footprint concept in 2002. It “shows water use related to consumption within a nation, while the traditional indicator shows water use in relation to production within a nation.” (Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008, p. 3)

With Hoekstra and Chapagain’s water footprint calculator (waterfootprint.org), you select your country, input food, domestic water use, and industrial goods consumption, press a button, and you get your:

• total water footprint for the year
• bar charts for the three components
• bar charts for individual food categories

For example, you’re in the US, eat only 1 pound of cereal a week (.4545 kg) and have a low-fat, low-sugar diet, use a low-flow showerhead, use a no-flush eco-toilet, and never run the tap while brushing your teeth. Two extremes:

• You’re the hippiest of the hip: making $10,000 a year: Your water footprint: 245 cubic meters (65,170 gallons)
• You’re the hippiest of the Yuppies: making $120,000: Your water footprint: 2979 cubic meters (792,414 gallons). Difference due to your income’s effect on industrial production.

Three notes on the calculations, because Professor Hoekstra is European and lives in the social welfare country that started birthing hippies in Amsterdam decades before they showed up in the US at Woodstock:

1. You input kilograms for food:
   • 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds = 35.2 ounces
   • 1 ounce = 0.028 kilograms. 1 pound = 0.454545 kilograms
2. Your water footprint is in cubic meters per year:
   • 1 cubic meter = 35.3 cubic feet = 266 gallons
3. The higher your income, the greater your water footprint, even if you don’t personally consume anything: you’re a capitalist pig supporting the Establishment Regime, I guess

So how is Cinnamon’s capitalist water footprint? Answer: 650 cubic meters (172,900 gallons)

I showed you mine. Now you show me yours:

Get the naked truth: Calculate your waterfootprint now:

Water’s running out:
I get the fossil fuel analogy so far.
And what about climate change?

We return to Fred Pearce’s book to find an example, of which he has oceans:

China’s Yellow River: The fifth longest in the world, it begins high in the mountains of eastern Tibet and journeys more than 3000 miles. Almost half a billion people depend on it for drinking and crop irrigation, and it’s made China the world’s largest wheat producer and second largest corn producer. Yet more than half of the lakes it feeds have disappeared over the last 20 years, and a third of pastures have turned to desert. This desertification generates huge dust storms that choke lungs in Beijing, close schools in Koreas, dust cars in Japan, and rain dust on mountains across the Pacific and Western Canada.

State irrigation projects along the Yellow River soak up the majority of its water – the total official allocations are greater than the actual flow.

The resulting drought could be an early warning sign of global warming.

Much of the declines in moisture reaching rivers is in line with prediction of climate researchers. So how does this global warming happen?

Higher air temperatures from desertification increase evaporation from oceans and intensify the water cycle. This increases atmospheric water vapor – 8 to 10% more than today. This increases global rainfall, but the rain is being redistributed: middle latitudes (read: the US) are becoming drier. Higher temperatures increase evaporation on land, meaning soil dries out faster, meaning less rainfall is reaching rivers.

The higher temperatures melt glaciers and snowpacks. At first, this leads to unpredecented floods. After the glaciers disappear, meltwaters that feed rivers disappear. The combined decreasing rainfall and increasing evaporation will lower moisture by 40% in the southern and western states.

The Sierra Nevada snowpack could diminish by 70 to 80 percent over the next 50 years. And some of the world’s most productive agricultural regions could dry up.

Global climate is becoming more extreme: the dry areas become drier, and the wet areas become wetter. And more areas are becoming dry deserts. Loss of habitat and agricultural lands. It’s a vicious cycle.

So what can you do?
Navigating through the Resource Matrix

As Fred Pearce points out, your drinking and bathing account for 0.05% of your total water consumption. Your food and clothing weigh in at 95.00%, although I find his 12,000 gallons needed to produce a pound of burger rather wild.

As Professor Arjen Y. Joekstra shows with his Water Footprint Calculator, your consumption of meats accounts for a lot, as does your guilt by association of being in an industrialized country.

The obvious solution: eat fewer e-coli burgers from your neighborhood Salt and Fat Slop Bucket restaurant.

The wiser solution: like your choices in energy use, become more aware of the resources needed to produce anything and the consequences. Such as luxurious cotton grown in the Egyptian desert.

Next article in the water efficiency series:
How an illiterate, lice-infested, foul-mouthed
peasant on some other side of the globe affects you

We continue going with the flow of water, when we show the parallel between the current hot Oil Wars and in the future cold Water Wars.

And all of this is for one purpose:

To help you see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you.

Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .

To your green, brighter future,

Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19

And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.

You can access it now by going to: http://www.a19.com/pub/articles/

From Cinnamon Alvarez: Founder, A19 — woman-owned green manufacturer of hand-made ceramic lighting fixtures

american idol - green brain

GIGA Green tech visite of Kevin Koerber

Recycle, Reuse and Reduce

Does you family recycle aluminum cans? Do they do it to get a little extra cash or because it is the responsible thing to do? How much do they, and you, know about what happens to the can after the soda is gone? Here is a quick true and false quiz on recycling. It will only take 2 or 3 minutes to find out what you know and what you need to know about the importance of families recycling.

Circle the answer for each of the 6 questions. Now test the other members of the family.

1. In the time it takes you to read this question, 50,000 12-ounce aluminum cans are made.

                  True or False

2. When you recycle one aluminum can you save enough energy to equal a half gallon of gasoline?

                  True or False

3. There is no limit to the amount of times aluminum can be recycled.

                  True or False

4. We use over 80,000,000,000 (billion!) cans a year.

                  True or False

5. At one time, aluminum was more valuable than gold.

                  True or False

6. More aluminum goes into beverage cans than any other product.

                  True or False

Surprise! All of the answers are true.

Did you know that for every $10 spent buying things $1 or 10% goes for packaging that is thrown away. Packaging, and that includes aluminum cans, represents 65% of household trash. Wow. What a waste of money and resources. We can do better than that.

Our family is making a special effort to Recycle, Reuse and Reduce. Will you join us in helping to protecting our earth and natural resources? Maybe your family could put up a special box to save aluminum cans for the recycling center.

(c) Judy H. Wright http://www.ArtichokePress.com You have permission to reprint this article in your blog, ezine or offline magazine as long as you keep the content and contact information intact. Thank You.

Artichoke Press is the home site of Judy H. Wright, family relationship coach and author. If your organization would like to schedule Auntie Artichoke, the storytelling trainer, for a workshop please call 406.549.9813.

You are also invited to visit our blog at http://www.AskAuntieArtichoke.com for answers and suggestions which will enhance your relationships. You will also find a full listing of free tele-classes and radio shows held each Thursday just for you.

Thanks for joining our community of caring parents, family members,coaches, teachers and mentors who want to help raise a generation of responsible adults.

Green Racing Car

Ban Or Save the Plastic Bag?

As part of the conservation and environmental movement worldwide there are several campaigns aimed at banning the plastic bag. These fit in perfectly with going green at home and with our longer term life styles.

A quick search on the web will take you to the San Francisco Bay Area, “Bay vs Bag”, to the Daily Mail’s (UK) “Banish the Bags” as well as similar situations in Canada, Holland, China, elsewhere in the US and even Zanzibar.

A lot of the focus is based on the damage done to wild life, including sea mammals and birds; the effects on waste and the average number of bags used per person in different countries. In one of the lists I saw, Singapore was topping the list at 625 bags.

One of the targets is to reduce by 10% the yearly consumption of these bags.

On the other hand there are also “Save the Plastic Bag” campaigns, with the plastic industry behind it. Their main focus is highlighting what they call misinformation. Their points are based on “exaggerations” on the damage done to wild life; errors in how plastic bags are made (from ethane gas that would otherwise be burnt and not petroleum); effects of co2 vs methane; potential job losses and so on.

On the banning side of the argument, there can be exaggerations as well as questionable scientific data – questionable as in anybody can question it, after all to have an argument you must always have at least two points of view.

From the “saving” the industry point of view, there can be many counter arguments to the data that is presented. And this is quite understandable, after all their industry could be hit very badly. (This just reminds me that all businesses have a life time curve that goes from birth, to growth, to maturity and finally to demise. The time scale can be as short as a year to as long as a hundred years or more, but the end result is that it is replaced by something else).

Some of the arguments are saying that nets and not plastic bags are causing marine life casualties, that paper bags are a worse alternative (side stepping the plastic bag issue) and basically attacking the “plastic bag misinformation campaign”.

Very probably both sides are looking to make their points by reducing or ridiculing their opponents point of view. But the overall issue is still there – are plastic bags affecting our environment?

To get back to the plastic bag banning situation, where paper bags have the negative effect of more trees cut, the information that is being retrieved is very important. But it must also be as objective as possible. Having said that, we know that it takes literally centuries for plastic to degrade and this should be the foremost argument.

Just to expand a little on the paper bag argument, which is totally reasonable, the option is not to cut more trees. The options are to recycle and use bio-degradable alternatives.

In the old days, when plastic bags hadn’t been invented but grocery shops had, natural fiber bags were used and the customers were the ones who brought their own to the shop.

With just a little effort on the individual front, these campaigns wouldn’t be necessary.

Want to know about environment and natural living? Information, news and facts can be found at: http://natural-living-tips.com/

Green Roof

What it Really Is: Recycling

Recycling has become the catch all phrase often used in place of the 3 R’s. But in its truest form recycling means taking one thing and changing it, usually chemically, into another. This is not to say that recycling is without value; it is certainly better than putting the items in the bin where they will end up in landfills and leach chemicals into our ground water. It is though to say that before you place anything in the recycle bag, first consider if you could reduce or re-use it, because everything that ends up in the recycling bag will have to be altered before it can be used again. Even then it is cleaner to produce goods from recyclables than from raw materials.

Here are just a few reasons to make certain that after you have reduced the amount of waste your create and re-used as many things as possible that your family puts as many things as possible into the recycling bins:

• Recycling one aluminium can saves enough energy to run a TV for three hours — or the equivalent of a half a gallon of gasoline.
• Each ton (2000 pounds) of recycled paper can save 17 trees, 380 gallons of oil, three cubic yards of landfill space, 4000 kilowatts of energy, and 7000 gallons of water. This represents a 64% energy savings, a 58% water savings, and 60 pounds less of air pollution!
• The 17 trees saved (above) can absorb a total of 250 pounds of carbon dioxide from the air each year. Burning that same ton of paper would create 1500 pounds of carbon dioxide.
• Recycling plastic saves twice as much energy as burning it in an incinerator.
• The energy saved from recycling one glass bottle can run a 100-watt light bulb for four hours. It also causes 20% less air pollution and 50% less water pollution than when a new bottle is made from raw materials.
• A modern glass bottle would take 4000 years or more to decompose — and even longer if it’s in the landfill.

Today is the actually a great day to talk about recycling. Each Thursday the council sends around men to collect our recyclables. The council gives us re-usable sacks, which we can use to collect all paper, cardboard, tin cans, aluminium, glass bottles and jars and plastic bottles. Unfortunately, they do not over recycling for other plastics. As I have been writing this series of blogs that has been one thing that I have been especially mindful of: how much plastic packaging manufacturers use that cannot be recycled and that it is estimated takes over 500 years to decompose in landfills.

But it is not just our plastics, glass, metals and paper that we recycle. Thanks to a wonderful programme through the Islington council, last year we were able to purchase a subsidized wormery to recycle our food waste into compost and liquid fertilizer for growing my own food. Actually, even though we may think that food thrown into the bin will degrade relatively quickly in the landfills, the biggest problem is the amount of methane, a dangerous green house gas, which it produces in that time. Methane is twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide and a major contribute to climate change. While my wormery cannot accommodate meat products I put all peels and unused fruits and vegetables into it. I should soon be harvesting my first patch of compost…just in time for my summer garden.

So how does my family do on recycling? Not too bad honestly. This week we had two bags of recyables and will only have two half full 13 gallon bin bags of other rubbish. Actually hubby and I got into a minor disagreement over the trash last night. One of the first rules of the 3R’s is to only throw out your garbage when the bag is full. In our case though, it had begun to smell. I am still looking for a solution…if anyone has ideas they would be greatly appreciated. But for a family of three adults and one pre-schoolers two large bags of recycling and one full 13 gallon bin bag in a week is pretty good I think. I imagine that there are single people, who put more than one bag in the bin each week.

Terri O’Neale is the mother of six; ranging in age from 3 to 22. She has been both a working and stay-at-home mother at various times in her life. She was also a single mother for almost five years, before re-marrying the love of her life at the age of forty. Obviously, she has a life-time of training in raising a family on a tight budget. In addition to these real life experiences, she possesses a bachelors degree in health education and a minored in environmental management in her masters programme.

Terri feels strongly that this is one of the most challenging times in history for the family, but she also believes that families with the will and resolve to address the pressing issues of saving money, becoming greener, leading healthier lifestyles and spending more time with one another can endure these challenging times and come out victorious in the end.

Through Frugal Family articles, blogs, videos and social networking, she helps modern families rediscover some lost art forms such as cooking, sewing, and gardening. The goal is not to go back in time or become fanatical, but to help all families find simple and effective ways that fit into their lifestyle to make moderate changes with huge impacts. For more information, check out her blog http://frugalfam.wordpress.com/.