Solar Power in Kentucky

Archive for September, 2011

For People A Green Vocabulary

The international passion to protect our planet from the ravages of pollution and to preserve our natural resources for future generations has become an everyday fact of life. With international support by “green” political parties, consumer organizations, celebrities and politicians, the green movement has become a powerful force with an agenda that needs to be addressed by industry, politicians and consumers. Discussions about the environment are taking place in corporate board rooms, legislative hearings, and by consumers in supermarkets and department stores.

Can we fully understand environmental concerns and energy implications without a working knowledge of basic green vocabulary? Do we understand all the issues relevant to tax incentives for oil companies? Can we properly compare the organic and nonorganic products that we decide to eat or wear every day? In essence, to think and live green you need to speak and understand green.

Understanding some key green terms and their implications can help us evaluate alternatives between our planet and sacrificing aspects our personal lifestyle. It can help us decide how we cast our vote or spend our money or how we live our lives. A green vocabulary can help us reduce our “carbon footprint “. The following represents what is best described as a green vocabulary of definitions and commentary to help eco-oriented consumers make informed green decisions.

A Green Vocabulary for Green People

Organic identifies products made under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act. Organic production guidelines are established to use organic materials and practices that improve ecological balance. Organic production incorporates agricultural system components to enhance natural biological systems.

Organic Agriculture is an ecological farming system that promotes natural chemical and biological cycles that improve soil fertility and maintains a balanced and productive farming system. Any products introduced to this system for fertility or pest protection are of natural composition. It eliminates the use of harmful synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, growth stimulants or antibiotics. These essential restrictions can reduce contamination or pollution to our air, water or food supply.

Natural Fibersare “certified” organic fibers derived from organic agriculture such as cotton, bamboo and hemp.

Certified Organic Cotton is derived from organic agriculture. The cotton is grown without artificial pesticides or fertilizers. Conventional cotton farming ranks about fourth in the use of pesticides in the US. Several of the top pesticides used in nonorganic cotton farming are EPA recognized carcinogens. It takes 1/3 of a pound of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers to make one organic T-shirt disregarding the use of any toxic dyes (Organic Trade Association). A typical organic tee shirt is also about the same weight but without these harmful chemicals. Organic cotton is produced using conservation minded or “sustainable” approaches to crop production. Such practices help to retain and promote soil fertility and the natural recycling of soil resources.

Organic Certification is provided by various organizations. The most widely recognized standards are GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) which is the basis for the statement “100% certified organic cotton” used by many green companies.

Fair Labor Practices are not necessarily restricted to agriculture but generally support fair wages and healthy working conditions.

Fair Trade Certification “…guarantees consumers that strict economic, social and environmental criteria were met in the production and trade of an agricultural product.”(www.transfairusa.org).

Sweatshop-free describes the absence of manufacturing conditions currently existing in many countries, referred to as “sweatshops”. They are production facilities or factories where goods are produced cheaply by minimizing workers’ salaries, and increasing working hours. Proper environmental health standards are diminished, yet demands for high levels of productivity still remain. These sweatshops may thrive from corporations seeking to increase profits by subcontracting inexpensive labor.

Sustainable means conserving and preserving limited natural resources and energy supplies. It is connected with the term “recycling” when natural products are re-used like rubber (for tires, shoes) or paper/trees (for books, business cards, magazines etc.), or wood (for recycled furniture). They are made from or made into recycled, carbon based products. A good example of preserving our resources is Trees for the Future, a charitable organization dedicated to replacing and planting trees. Unfortunately, most of our energy production is derived from organic (carbon based) fossil fuels that cannot be recycled as compared to wind or solar energy. All of this is connected to our lifestyle and our “carbon footprint” discussed next.

Carbon Footprint is a descriptor of environmental impact. It describes the consumption of carbon based natural resources or the production of carbon by-products like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide or “greenhouse emissions”. It’s about lifestyle and the amount of carbon based resources we consume through transportation, climate control, manufacturing etc. Basically it relates to how much each of us consume in terms of natural resources to meet our needs. In general each of us should be committed to reducing the size of our “footprint” to sustain resources for present and future generations.

Eco-fashion is a general term describing organic clothing that has addressed the needs of the environment as well as socially responsible working conditions.

Eco-friendly suggests a product or process than has a reduced impact on the environment.

Low Impact Dyes refers to dyes used the manufacture of goods that should have minimal impact on the environment. Sometimes the term non-toxic is used here as well.

Green is a generally positive term referring to the environment, organics or even a green lifestyle to be discussed shortly.

Conscientious Clothingdescribes organic clothing has addressed environmental, ethical and socially responsible standards.

The Green Lifestyle

Green Lifestyle or Green Living describes a lifestyle reflecting a strong commitment to the environment. In addition, it addresses compassionate and positive thinking. It means choosing a life with charitable deeds and practices, reflecting compassion for the environment and others. Green living is being proactive and incorporates spiritual growth leading to ethical thinking.

Social Responsibility can be defined as accepting responsibility for others and taking action against social injustice. It includes meeting the needs of others through charitable giving.

Charitable Giving describes a sense of genuine compassion and reacting to it with charitable practices towards others.

In summary, a green lifestyle represents caring for the environment combined with positive thinking leading to ethical behavior and compassionate living. Ultimately, your deeds represent positive thoughts in action. The result can be a clean, safe environment and a better quality of life for yourself and others.

If you learned some green vocabulary, be sure to use it to make decisions and set priorities in your life. Think about adopting a greener lifestyle!

Bob Folkart is Vice-President of Live Life Organics, a company devoted to encouraging the living of a passionate life through environmental awareness. Live Life Organics has created a range of eco-friendly, organic cotton clothing from adults to babies. Every item of apparel displays positive inspirational messages promoting courage, hope and compassion and includes a plantable hang tag that recycles and grows into wild flowers. To view these organic products, go to: http://www.livelifeorganics.com.

The News for Green Vehicle Team (segment 3)

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 Millennium Photocatalyst

Is Australia’s Emission Trading System Going to Work Effectively

In Australia the government are introducing an emission trading or cap and trade scheme.  There are major concerns about the level of reduction the government wants to sign up to and also whether it will actually work.

As Australians we do need to take action about carbon reduction.  We are both the most vulnerable continent for feeling the effects of global warming and also we are the worst greenhouse emitters per head than any other country on the planet.  We emit even more than the USA and Canada who are our nearest competitors for this wooden spoon.  This is at least in part due to our huge coal industry.

The head of the Australia Institute’s Think Tank says that the Federal Government’s emissions trading scheme will have too many permits and will not reduce carbon emissions.

The Australia Institute’s executive director, Dr Richard Denniss, said the scheme’s flaws related to the 5 to 15 per cent emissions reduction targets, which he described as ”ridiculously low”, and he said there would be too many permits.  Dr Dennis said that “We won’t achieve the policy goal, which is to reduce emissions.”

Dr Denniss told the Senate that ”[If] we pass this legislation, we’ve got it for the next 10 years. And anyone that’s got a good idea a year later, it’s not going to help. This legislation is designed to not be tinkered with.”

Professor Clive Hamilton, from the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, said the proposed scheme had damaged Australia’s reputation. A reduction target of at least 25 per cent needed to be set if the Government wanted credibility on the world stage.   Australia would be better off taking no policy than the proposed model to the December climate change talks in Copenhagen, he said.

”It not only lowers the ambition of the world community but also excludes Australia from being a forceful player in negotiating … a strong international agreement.”

It is hard to see how exempting large emitters ignoring the 1.9 million small to medium businesses is going to help us reduce our carbon footprint. These same small businesses are currently suffering from financial stress, the business owners and managers are overworked and simply don’t feel able to handle anything new. Many don’t really understand what global warming is about or why it matters. 

We urgently need unambiguous communication so that small to medium businesses accept the reality of the need for change and also how easy it can be to make significant reductions with minimal time input and save money at the same time.

We also need to help low income households reduce their carbon footprint with more efficient heating and cooling and effective public transport.  We should NOT be giving them even more cash hand outs as “compensation” as currently promised by the government.  All households need to come on board and stop wasting power.

We need a clear message that going green applies to all of us, is easy and saves money – just “go for a grumpy walk and just turn it off”.  If every small business and householder just went around each office and home and did this it would be relatively easy for every one to reduce their carbon emissions and their power bill by 15-20%. At present we are told it will be difficult and it only applies to big business.  Such a wrong message – we all need to pull together.

A Brief given to the Victorian Government advises that the state should only bother with green measures if they are more cost-effective than alternatives.  They have been told to rethink programs such as subsidies for solar farms and hybrid car fleets because these will not contribute to any additional emission cuts under the federal scheme.

The Greens have concerns about the cost of emission permits being reduced by the actions of households, councils and governments, hence reducing industry’s incentive to cut emissions. This is more than simply an economic debate. Individuals and households should also be reducing their emissions. Achieving sustainability is a grassroots exercise that involves the entire community, and Australians are becoming aware of the need to remake the economy and society. The momentum must not be lost.

An additional concern is whether the legislation and also the international agreements reached in Copenhagen will be flexible enough to take account of emerging technology.  At present this does not appear to be the case.  Senator Wong, the Minister for Climate Change, rejected spending on biochar, a form of carbon capture in soil research because that is not listed in the protocol.  Thankfully some soil carbon storage research will now be funded in the agriculture budget but that begs the requirement for the legislation to be flexible and allow for new and future technology.

If the ETS cannot deliver real carbon reductions it is really a form of “greenwash” saying we signed Kyoto and have done something before the next election. The big problem is that the government looks ahead 3 years to the next election, Big Biz CEO’s also look to the short term of their contracts and bonuses.  Who looks ahead for our children?

Jean Cannon is an energy management and sustainable business consultant. If you would like more information about how to go green in your home or business and increase your business profits why don’t you go to http://www.itiseasytobegreen.com and download a chapter of my book of almost the same name and find out how to reduce your carbon footprint.

Water’s Role in Global Warming

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

Online News Video Of A "green" fleet

Kelley Blue Book Interviews Todd Suckow

Yahoo Vs Google – Who’s Greener?

Silicon Valley is known for both innovation and hype. Recently, this pool of innovation has extended beyond bandwidth to the protection the environment. Google and Yahoo, the search engine giants, are both headquartered in the Valley and have been making headlines by greening their offices, reducing energy consumption, and carbon trading. The PR motivations are obvious, but are the green benefits really there? To set apart the hype from reality, we have analyzed the green value of both Google and Yahoo’s headquarter facilities.

We looked at the ecological services provided by green landscape features such as trees and open space (i.e. grass). Grass and trees are pervious surfaces, meaning they allow water to permeate into the ground. Roofs, sidewalks, patios, and asphalt parking lots are examples of impervious surfaces, where rainwater drains into the public storm drains. Heavy metals, oil, and other pollutants are carried off parking lots in rainwater, which often lead directly to open water habitats, where fish, birds, and reptiles live.

In terms of ecological services, trees and grass have been proven to:

1.      Remove and store carbon from the atmosphere,

2.      Remove certain airborne pollutants,

3.      Permits rainwater to seep into the ground as opposed to draining into the stormdrains, and

4.      Remove certain waterborne pollutants.

Here is a look at how green Google and Yahoo really are and how the measure up against each other.

Google Green Report
Google’s headquarters, the Googleplex, covers 44 acres, nearly 50% of which is grass or tree canopy. This is an impressive paved to open space ratio. The grass and trees on the Googleplex remove roughly 2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.04 tons per year per acre. In addition, 530 lbs. of air pollution are removed per year (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter), or 12 lbs. per year per acre. It was assumed that the parking lot of the Googleplex is asphalt, and not a type of porous pavement, so the cost of managing rainfall runoff from the Googleplex is $4,474 per year, or $103 per year per acre. The abundance of grass and tree canopy on the Googleplex go a long way to offset the water quality impacts of the paved surfaces (mainly the parking lot). On average, the grass and trees reduce water pollution by 6%, as opposed to the entire property being paved.

Yahoo Green Report
The Yahoo headquarters, Yahooplex, covers 28 acres, a third of which is grass or tree canopy. This is a classic ratio of paved to open space for large office complexes in California. So far, par for the course. The Yahooplex removes 0.36 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.01 tons per year per acre. 114 lbs. of air pollutants are removed per year, or 4 lbs. per year per acre. In terms of rainfall, the cost associated with runoff is $9,219 per year, or $331 per year per acre. The grass and tree canopy help offset the paved areas with a 2.3% reduction in water pollution as opposed to the entire property being paved.

The final green analysis?

Google kicks Yahoo’s butt, largely due to the forethought, or luxury, of the Googleplex having 50% of its property surface providing green services. The good news for both Google and Yahoo is that over time, as trees grow, so will the tree’s canopy and mass, thus storing more carbon and removing more air pollutants.

Green next steps for both Google and Yahoo is to:
 

1. Install porous parking surfaces, allowing up to 80% of rainwater to seep into the ground,
2. Install green roofs, absorbing rainwater while reducing cooling costs and energy consumption, and
3. Planting larger trees on the south and west sides of the buildings to reduce cooling costs and energy consumption.

While we crunched the hard numbers to settle the Google vs. Yahoo green debate, this report illuminates the great opportunity that awaits these two Silicon Valley giants to harness the ecological services of green surfaces.

Chris Erichsen is a GIS Mapping consultant with the Erichsen Group, GIS and Mapping in northern California. He has over 10 yrs of GIS experience and helps many industries around the world apply GIS mapping technology. Learn more examples of GIS mapping capabilities.

Homemade Biodiesel Kits Are Used to Make Biodiesel Fuel by First Timers

The cost of fuel has gone up again that people are thinking of alternative ways to save up on other things just so they can still continue to make use of their vehicles. Actually, there is a better way by which we can save up on fuel without having to let go of other necessities or luxuries that we have in our life. Sometimes we need all this to keep us going. When you take away one or two, you may take away your only source of happiness. So think twice before cutting off hobbies or things that you are already accustomed to.

One thing by which we can save gas is if we make it ourselves. It is possible since homemade biodiesel kits are available for consumers to buy them. There are instructions online and there are even step-by-step videos on how to make biodiesel fuel. These are especially useful for people who prefer to see it than reading about it. The great thing about seeing how it is made is you can actually see the equipments that are being used. So you can always pattern your equipment with what is being shown.

Since you will be doing it yourself, there are a couple of things you have to watch out for. You have to watch out for methanol and lye because it is dangerous. Aside from that, since you will be making use of heat and vegetable oils, fire is always a possibility. First time makers of biodiesel fuel should be extra careful when proceeding and like any other endeavor it takes practice to perfect it.

Cheryl Forbes owns and operates the website http://www.homemadebiodieselkits.com

Grass Root Efforts: Promote Earth Day

What is Earth Day?

While you have probably heard the words “Earth Day”, did you know there are two observations of Earth Day? The United Nations celebrates on the equinox; hundreds of countries celebrate Earth Day annually on April 22nd. Both events were birthed in 1969, with grassroots efforts, a focus on environmental awareness, and celebration of Earth.

Events to Leading to Earth Day

Prior to 1970, conservatism was an idea held by a minority of people. The notion that natural resources would become devastated to the point of extinction did not enter our collective thought. Pollution, from our buildings, cars, and behavior, was a normal industry by-product. The idea of being the world’s steward was lumped in a mindset of ‘a hippie thing’ and not understood by mainstream America. Two previous events tilted our environmental awareness: a book and a picture.

In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson published Silent Spring. The book talked about the commonly used, toxic pesticides used in agriculture and daily life. The title referred to the consequences of the devastating pesticides: a world without birds. Surprisingly, Silent Spring became a hit. Americans cared, and they wanted the facts.

In 1968, the world saw the entire Earth for the first time. Apollo astronauts photographed the planet on their flight home from the moon. The Earth looked beautiful with its swirls of blues and whites. The photo provided a startling awareness: people saw Earth as vulnerable and needing human care.

Earth Day is Born

In 1969, John McConnell promoted Earth Day as a global celebration of Earth’s gifts. The equinox seemed fitting time, as it was the mid-point of spring and autumn across the hemispheres. A peace activist, McConnell first presented his Earth Day idea to an audience at the UNESCO Conference on the Environment. He wanted Earth Day to be a global holiday, where the world celebrates Earth’s wonders and gifts.

On March 21, 1970, cities across the globe celebrated Earth Day. McConnell created an Earth Day proclamation that called upon people to take action against crises of the world, such as famine, war, and poverty. The proclamation also stated that participants would celebrate an international Earth Day to create a single community and embrace Earth’s gifts. The proclamation was endorsed by well-known people and leaders around the world: astronaut Buzz Aldrin, anthropologist Margaret Mead, inventor-scientist Buckminister Fuller, Japanese environmental scientist, Y. Fukushima, American senators, U.N. President S.O. Adebo, and UN Secretary-General Thant.

In April of 1970, the world celebrated another Earth Day event. The April 22nd event also began as a way to spread awareness of environmental issues. American Senator and conservationist, Gaylord Nelson, had actively toured the U.S. in the mid 1960’s with an environmental awareness agenda. Wanting the U.S. government to take an active role in environmental concerns, Nelson presented the idea for a national conservationist tour to President Kennedy, who supported the idea. While President Kennedy’s tour did not turn environmental issues into mainstream conversations, it was a beginning in changing America’s role in environmental issues. Nelson was inspired by college campuses’ widespread Vietnam protests, or teach-ins. He thought a nationwide conservationist teach-in would get more Americans involved in environmental issues.

Nelson presented his Earth Day idea to other government officials and news organizations. He promoted Earth Day to senators, governors, mayors, and college campuses’ newspaper editors. In November 1969, he formally announced a nationwide, environmental teach-in, called Earth Day, would be held in the spring of 1970. As the event became headline news, the public reacted enthusiastically. Nelson first handled Earth Day public relations from his senate office, but with the public’s overwhelming interest, the office moved into its own organization. Founder of Common Cause John Gardner helped with a temporary office, and college students helped field the office. Nelson appointed Dennis Hayes as coordinator of activities.

Approximately 20 million people celebrated the first Earth Day. In America, participation was high in schools, which ten thousand grade schools and high schools, two thousand colleges participating. Amazing numbers, considering the event started as a grassroots movement.

Government Actions

The strength of the Earth Day movement was clear to legislatures. Following Earth Day’s success, the U.S. government passed laws that targeted cleaner living. In 1970, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was established. The Clean Air Act followed with a focus on reducing air pollution, with the Clean Water Act doing likewise for water clean-up in 1972. The U.S. also passed the Endangered Species Act to protect animals from extinction.

Mainstream Americans talked about recycling and conservation. In the 1980’s, many people recycled within their neighborhood recycling programs. People’s awareness of their ecological responsibility became part of their lives and actions. Children learned the importance of taking care of their environment; they were taught to care for the earth and its animals. The iconic Smokey Bear (originated in the mid 1940’s) featured poster slogans, like “If not you, who?” and “Only you can prevent forest fires. We can’t.” Americans seemed to step-up to their roles as Earth trustees.

In the 1990’s, recycling programs reduced overall waste by twenty percent. With people and government taking responsibility, companies followed suit. Manufacturers looked at ways to reduce toxic by-products and appear environmentally responsible to their customers. Their marketing campaigns highlighted eco-friendly actions, like reducing environmental waste.

Resurgence

Even with progressive responsibility, people did not celebrate Earth Day as they had in the beginning year. Celebrations were still held, but they weren’t as widely attended or announced. In 1990, the original Earth Day coordinator, Dennis Hayes, organized a worldwide Earth Day. For the thirtieth anniversary of Earth Day, Hayes planned for a global celebration, with participation from countries around the world. The event was observed by 200,000 people across the globe. The movement continued with recognition that environmental issues impacted the world and spurred the international community to work as a unit and combat its shared problems. In 1992, leaders at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) recognized their joint responsibility and planned for future projects on sustainable living.

Earth Day Birthday

In 2009, visionary Simon Ford led a grassroots effort on the internet. This global community focused on a renewed urgency about environmental issues. Their first major campaign focused on worldwide environmental crises, the responsibility of mankind to solve them, and a project to unite participants across the world. The event, Earth Day Birthday, formed, as a global event to celebrate Mother Nature’s gifts.

Successful Earth Day events in the past came from grassroots efforts in spreading environmental awareness. Earth Day Birthday joins online social networks with real world actions. Earth Day event organizers and participants find each other on the web. Supporters are spreading the word on environmental issues and taking action in their own communities. Earth Day Birthday provides the 20th century, grassroots effort in reaching eco-friendly people and making an impact on the planet.

For more information about Earth Day Birthday, this site provides Earth Day Birthday campaign details:
www.eventslisted.com/eventlaunchstrategies/category/launch-strategies/earth-day-birthday

Jennifer Akers is a freelance writer, book reviewer, and editor. She writes about family, education, business, and social marketing. Her eco-friendly passions started with an interest in making a difference in the planet and joining Earth day Birthday. To find out more about her freelance writing life, please visit: http://www.Squidoo.com/JenniferAkers

10 Tips Of Green At Home

Activated Odor Combatant Carbon ?

There are many stinky things in the world today. From the bathroom to the kitchen there are things in everyday life that can cause a nose to curl. However, activated carbon can quickly eliminate odors in the home, office, or commercial building. While many products simply mask odors or cover them up, activated carbon can absorb the odor and eliminate it once and for all. There are many ways that activated carbon can be used within a building to remove odor. Whether the smell is a permanent or occasional odor, activated carbon can be used to eliminate it.

Air Filtration Systems

An air filtration system can be placed on the air supply to any building to help eliminate the odors in the building. If there is a central heat and air system in the building the air filtration system can be used in the circulation process. A free standing air purification system can also be used in bathrooms that are used by numerous employees. These systems are much more effective than other means of removing odors.

Odor Blocking Masks

For those who work or play in environments that are not appealing to their noses there are activated charcoal masks that can be worn. These masks work to block the smells from reaching the nose. As the smell passes through the mask it is sucked up against the carbon and held there, eliminating the smell. These masks are perfect for those who work with garbage, waste, or cleaning products.

Flatulence Elimination pads and Inserts

Flatulence is a problem for many people today. Because of a fast paced environment and fast food restraints many people experience this condition. Luckily, there are now flatulence pads that can be used to eliminate the odor that accompanies flatulence. These pads can be placed in a chair for those in an office. However, there are also flatulence pads that can be placed inside the undergarment to eliminate odors.

Odor Eliminators for Pets

Activated charcoal can also be used to eliminate the odor that accompanies pet ownership. There are many smells that can come from litter boxes, accidents on the floor, and messes made in the yard. However, activated carbon can be made in the form of a powder. This powder can be sprinkled into the litter box, on the carpet, or in the yard outside. For use on the carpet in can be sprinkled on and then vacuumed up However, in other places it can be left to continue working. It is perfectly safe to use around pets and will not cause any harm if they ingest it.

There are many uses fro activated carbon today. It is an excellent odor eliminator. While these are many of the uses for eliminating odors there are many more. Anywhere there is a smell or odor; activated carbon can be used to eliminate it. This product is a green option for cleaning, absorbing, and eliminating odor. Activated carbon also has many other uses including purification, detoxification and moisture absorption.

Carbon Resources Management Team has over 70 years of experience in the Activated Carbon and Activated Charcoal carbons industry. Our Sabre series® activated carbon products are the most diverse line of activated carbon products on the market.

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

Green Technology World

Green Technology World

Lets Revisit Some of the Debates For the Global Warming Theory

We have all heard about Global Warming, where the planet’s atmosphere is supposedly heating up. Of course, we as common citizens have no real proof, only what our scientists tell us, along with the Think Tanks and mass media. But how can we trust this when Global Warming researchers have been paid 100s of millions of dollars, and they know if they disagree with global warming theory the money stops being funded and they are out of work?

One of the most fascinating debate points for Global Warming goes something like this; “The majority of scientists say global warming is real and we are already seeing its impact (the drought in the Western USA and the long term drought in Australia.”

This is seriously a flawed argument and let me tell you why. You see it is irrelevant and may not even be true. After all, 55% would be most of the scientists and thus the majority, still leaving a huge contingency of doubters, with plenty of data and research to back up the opposite point of view.

Likewise, during Copernicus’ day only one man believed the world was round, everyone else said it was flat; so the “majority of scientists” argument is irrelevant; majorities don’t mean anything. If you were one of a 100 people and they all jumped off a bridge because they agreed to, would you jump too? That is illogical.

Now then, the second part of the argument has to do with droughts in the world. And we all know that droughts come and go. Remember the Dust Bowl “Grapes of Wrath” in the US? And in the 1950s Australia had a drought just as bad during the same period, same as the one they are having now. This one we notice more because there are more people demanding the same amount of water.

In California, the snowpack this year is normal and anymore puts us above normal, thus, the drought theoretically is over? So, does that mean this so-called Global Warming is over? Of course, not the powers that be, behind global warming will continue to pursue this until it’s no longer in their interests. Think on this.

Lance Winslow – Lance Winslow’s Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/.

Do We Want Too Much?

What can be done about this increasingly worrying contribution to global warming?

The most important options to reduce aircraft CO2 emissions are:

Changes in aircraft and engine technology; use of alternative fuels, such as (sustainably produced) biofuels; regulatory and operational measures such as improvements in air traffic management; economic measures such as inclusion of aircraft emissions in emission trading schemes.

But, as Giovanni Bisignani, manager of International Air Transport Association (IATA), stated: “Emissions trading schemes only make sense with efficient infrastructure. The IPCC estimates that there is 12% inefficiency in air traffic management globally: we produce up to 73 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year by aircraft flying inefficiently due to air traffic management limitations”. **

On a personal level we could ask ourselves especially in the developed world: “Do we really need to fly so frequently?” The use of telework, teleconference and video conference could be largely increased to plan work and meetings. Can’t the development of land and air transportation infrastructures be balanced better according to the real needs of people and businesses? Trains could connect cities better and more cheaply for example in Europe, where the prices are not competitive with those of many flights anymore (and night train services have been reduced if not cancelled).

Life styles do matter because if millions of people want to have cheap weekends in relatively close tourist locations, many flights are needed to satisfy their desires and consequently a lot of pollution is generated. Also, our per capita emissions could be cut also by reducing the “surplus” trips, by slowing down our life rhythms and enjoying more local attractions in our free time. Who knows? We could discover the “exotic” in our own neighborhoods without flying to the Caribbean Sea…

Furthermore the relationship between the costs and the environmental externalities (i.e. costs not included in the economy like health damages caused by pollution) needs to be considered as well: there are higher marginal impacts for short-distance flights that should be considered in prices paid by passengers.

All these political, technological and personal choices are some of the good examples needed by the developing countries to follow the 21st century’s Western society along a new sustainable path which looks like the only good alternative forward.

**”Talks to reduce aircraft global-warming emissions

For further information on Climate Change please visit the Responding to Climate Change website – http://www.rtcc.org