Things You Can Do to Conserve

BTW, I encourage all readers to go to http://worldwatch.org aka Worldwatch Institute for excellent research and reporting on global warming and other environmental issues. I started reading WW Magazine in 1993. At about the time, I read Bill McKibben‘s “The End of Nature“.

So while I’m at it, I’d like to recommend Bill McKibben’s “Deep Economy“, the best ‘environmental’ book I’ve read in the past few years. It not only gives you a thorough understanding of the perils of the fossil fuel world we live, but more importantly it provides many ideas and insights on how we could turn the shop around, how we can live comfortably and well, and still save the planet.

And since Worldwatch starts me thinking about Lester Brown (formerly Worldwatch Institute), check out the Earth Policy Institute, and get a copy of “Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization” – a close 2nd place on my Green Reading List. I haven’t come across another book that deserves such a title. You will find (maybe not all but enough) solutions to our problems which – after the initial cold sweats and panic attacks – will make you hopeful.

Okay, enough of the reading list. Here is quote from WorldWatch (you can subscribe to these emails on their website):

Livestock Emissions: Still Grossly Underestimated?

The environmental impact of animals raised for food has been vastly underestimated and in fact accounts for at least half of all human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs), according to contributors to this month’s World Watch magazine. Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, co-authors of “Livestock and Climate Change,” found that livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions.

From Sustainabletable.org:

…ten percent of the energy used annually in the United States was consumed by the food industry. …  Approximately twenty-three percent of the energy used in our food production system is allocated to processing and packaging food. Another thirty-two percent is burned in home refrigeration and cooking.

From this quote: 

Packaging accounted for 30.3 percent of municipal solid waste in 1990. (Municipal solid wastes are those generated by households, businesses, and institutions.) This figure includes the following materials, in the following proportions: paper (47.7 percent), glass (24.5 percent), plastic (14.5 percent), steel (6.5 percent), wood (4.5 percent), and aluminum (2.3 percent).

And I come back to the main question: what can I do ?

To reduce my consumption of packaging, I am somwhat limited if I shop at the average store. I can try to bring my own re-usable shopping bags which I do. But it’s a tiny fraction of the packaging involved in one trip to the grocery store. And even then: The other day at the store, I explained that I wouldn’t need all my bottles placed in bags. So what did they do instead ? They placed a sticker on each bottle as proof of purchase for the 50-foot journey from check-out to the door. Ridiculous ! No doubt, the manufacturing of one sticker is a greater waste than that of a plastic bag. Plus, I ended up with more stickers than the number of plastic bags I declined. Granted, it was my fault. That was the day I forgot the re-usable bags.

What else can I do?

- Buy Food Grown Locally (less transportation involved)

- Grow My Own Food – I’d like to. It will probably be healthier, too

- Overall, cut back on comsumption !! Not buy stuff I don’t need.

I realize that the biggest challenge in all of this will be that the entire US economy is focused on servicing consumers buying things they really don’t need. How do you redesign this system without destroying an entire economy ??

What if, the earth is well beyond it’s regular point of a recycling period?  We believe that the earth has undergone catastrophic elimination of most life forms 5 times that we know of.  We’re impacted by internal forces as well as external and we believe that a huge rock hit earth to wipe out the dinosaurs.

Yes, Planet Earth is constantly evolving. Ice ages are followed by warmer periods. Continents are adrift and occasionally collide. Our location in space is changing relative to the Sun by approximately 6″ per year, and there have been mass extinctions. For the geologically inclinded, I had to refresh my ailing memory:

Ordovician-Silurian: approximately 439 million years ago with 60 percent of marine genera going extinct.

Devonian: 364 million years ago, 57 percent of marine genera going extinct.

Permian-Triassic: 251 million years ago, Earth’s worst mass extinction, 95 percent of all species going extinct.

Triassic-Jurassic:  roughly 199 million to 214 million years ago, 22 percent of marine families and 52 percent of marine genera going extinct.

Cretaceous-Tertiary: about 65 million years ago, 47 percent of marine genera and 18 percent of land vertebrate families going extinct ( the one with the meteorite smashing into the Yucatan !).

So, there it is. A pretty destructive record. Loss of life. Melted Ice caps, and continents encrusted in ice. Ages of intense vulcanism. Poisoned atmosphere. Been there done.

I am not denying that the planet has undergone dramatic change. But none of that change was caused by one species essentially managing the rest of the planet including other species. None of that change came about as quickly as the climate change brought about by human fossil fuel combustion. With the exception of the immediate aftermath of the Cretaceous/Tertiary meteorite impact, all of the above extinctions, although quick by geologic time, have been slow on the human time scale. Think of it as the slow movement of your physical therapist’s hands ans compared to Mike Tyson’s fist. The planet has been able to respond to plenty environmental changes in the best, re-establishing inhabitable conditions in the process. But it takes time.

Climate Change will not end life on Earth. It will not destroy the planet. But it will forever change what happens on the surface of the planet in many ways. Any species that is lost due to changing climate is a species gone forever. You may think that this is not dramatic since it’s happened before.  I think it is because it could be avoided, and I am talking about all species – fish living in the deep blue sea, strange beetles that haven’t even been discovered, and the staples that have historically fed the billions of people on this planet because they were hardy and adaptable breed that assured good harvests. Yes. we’re getting good at genetic engineering. But what a crime to let existing plant and animal species die out because we were so wasteful !

I have no doubt that mankind would survive climate collapse, that some of us would be able to “live” under the new conditions. In fact, that will probably be the main reason why this time around climate change and ensuing mass extinction will be grander and quicker than any before. Humans in the industrialized world will adapt and figure out how to continue emitting large amounts of CO2, while humans in the rest of the world and all other species will suffer the consequences.

The point that I am trying to make is that the type of climate change occurring right now, is totally different from past climatic and geologic changes. We’ve all heard about the tipping points at which due to atmospheric concentrations planetary temperatures will start spinnig out of control as more and more greenhouse gases are released from warming permafrost and warming ocean waters. Climate models till very recently underestimated the rates at which change is coming about. No reason to assume that we won’t have to revise our models again shortly. Time is running out if we want to preserve our planet in a way that resembles conditions of the last 1 million years. Doing so is an ethical choice, and it makes economic sense because changing course now will be cheaper than repairing the damage down the road.

The United States emitted 5.825 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 in 2006 according to US Department of Energy.

The average vehicle emits 5.23 metric tons CO2 per year by driving 12,000 miles (approxmately 33 miles per day) according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, total highway registered vehicles in 2007: 254,403,082, including passenger cars: 135,932,930, and other 2-axle vehicles: 101,469,615, so let’s say cars and light trucks = 235,000,000.

Driving 5 miles (or 15%) less per day =  0.15 * 5.23 = 0.8 tons less CO2!

Do that for all vehicles in the US, you get: 235,000,000 * 0.8 tons = 188,000,000 tons !

188 Million Tons out of 5.82 Billion = 3.2 % reduction by drivng 5 fewer miles a day ON AVERAGE !

Imagine what the savings will be by throwing in a couple of no-driving days a month ! 66 miles. 2.3 mi/day. That’s another 1.5% reduction !

I think there are ways to reduce energy waste without suffering cataclysmic lifestyle changes.

These numbers were pulled off the web and used just as an example. I’m sure given the proper time and consideration, all kinds of contraints and caveats would apply. I may be off by 50%. But even then, it llustrates the point, I think, that small changes in behavior, will add up. Think about it.

Ending deforestation is a form of cutting out waste. But after that’s done, it’s time to undo some of the damage by planting trees. I can’t think of a simpler way to get CO2 out of the air. Maybe there is. But planting a tree seems pretty simple, and must be one of the cheapest, most “natural” ways to do it (especially compared to some of the geoengineering ideas).

According to Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute, the Swedish energy firm, Vattenfall estimates that there are “1.86 billion hectares of degraded land in the world—land that was once forestland, cropland, or grassland—and that half of this, or 930 million hectares … [has the potential]… to absorb roughly 21.6 billion tons of CO2 per year. If, as part of a global climate stabilization strategy, carbon sequestration were valued at $210 per ton of carbon, the company believes that 18 percent of this technical potential could be realized. If so, this would mean planting 171 million hectares of land to trees. This area—larger than that planted to grain in India—would sequester 3.5 billion tons of CO2 per year, or over 950 million tons of carbon. The total cost of sequestering carbon at $210 per ton would be $200 billion. Spread over a decade, this would mean investing $20 billion a year to give climate stabilization a large and potentially decisive boost“.

Sounds like another “cheap” no-brainer, doesn’t it ?

The journal Science reports that “tropical deforestation releases 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon each year into the atmosphere.”

The destruction of these forests means an irreversible loss of biodiversity and a loss of carbon from biomass to CO2 in the atmosphere. Moreover, these forests are no longer functioning as carbon traps for atmospheric CO2. Therefire, stopping deforestation will contribute hugely to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions without requiring new technology or much undustry transitioning.  In fact, people making a living cutting down trees in Brazil, Indonesia, and Afriac will most likely end up making a living planting trees and taking care of new forests. To me, this one is a no-brainer.

Fortunately, there has been some recent action in Congress (June 2009). Even US Legislators are figuring out that saving forests is a cheap way to start fighting global warming.

According to the bi-partisan The Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests, “tropical deforestation currently accounts for 5.5-6 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year, nearly all in developing nations.”

“Global funding needed to make these changes is estimated at $2 billion in 2010 growing to $30 billion per year by 2020.”

I say that’s quite a bargain compared to some of the numbers we’ve heard in the recent bailout bonanzas !

As expected, feedback to my email was minimal. 95% of recipients didn’t acknowledge receipt of it in any way whatsoever. I don’t believe that people were annoyed by yet another long email clogging up their inbox. I am not the kind of person who forwards silly jokes and emails all the time. Something tells me that if I had forwarded a really dumb joke, at least half the people would have responded in one form or another. The 5% who did respond, on the other hand, had very interesting things to say, and I look forward to continuing the discussion with them here on this blog.

The truth is that most people were probably annoyed by the title and content of my email because they find climate change annoying, which is almost as catastrophic as the nature of the problem itself.
People are annoyed by climate change because 1) the concept of subtle change on a global scale is hard to grasp, 2) because any commitment to avert climate collapse will require a change in people’s behavior and 3) because a discussion of climate change involves questions regarding man’s role in nature, which for me, personally, is about ethics, about a kind of responsiblity or stewardship towards the planet, while for others it must be a question of religion, which no doubt complicates matters.

I would like to use this blog to raise awareness of the urgency of the problem. The time for action has passed. If we don’t wake up from our slumber, future generations will not be able to enjoy the same planet that we walk on. I want to use this blog to share what I consider interesting facts and valuable information found on the web and elsewhere, interspersed with my own ideas, questions, fears, and hopes.

I am interested in climate change because I care. Because I don’t want the climate to change. Because I like our planet the way it’s been for the last 1,000,000 years, including the 30-odd years I’ve lived upon it. I am very concerned because I feel a sense of responsibility to know what’s happening.
Granted, while I have a degree in the earth sciences (geology), I am not an expert on climate change by any stretch, nor on most other environmental issues. But maybe my education has left me with a deeper sense of Earth history, Earth processes and changes, and especially rates of change. I’ll try to use this sense and my training sensibly on this blog. I don’t want to preach. I want to persuade. I’m not against progress, but I see value in protecting the environment. Most of all though, I want to make it clear that we can’t pretend that all is well on Planet Earth, when we have got a huge problem.
I hope that you will find something interesting on this blog, and that it will make you think, and maybe consider the consequences of letting our climate spin out of control. Let me know what you think, and I will look forward to a hopefully fruitful exchange of thoughts and opinions.

1) How can green house gas emissions be reduced as quickly as possible ?

 What is the best strategy here ? Cap&Trade ? Alternative Energy ? The transformation of our energy sector and energy dependent industry will take some time – time that we don’t have. What can be done in the meantime ? Simply asking for conservation and higher effiency all across the board would be ideal. But is it realistic ? Unlikely. How do you get people to consume (and waste) less without sending a depressed economy into tail spin ? Who can we do more in a short period of time – industry or citizens  at home ?

2) How can the effect of past emissions be mitigated or compensated ?

Lots of greenhouse gases are already in the atmosphere. Who do we get them out, or do we render them “harmless” if that’s possible. How quickly does reforestation work ? What are other models of quick and cheap Carbon Sequestration ?Is Geoengineering the solution, or would we be opening the ultimate can of worms ? It seems that in any scenario we will need to become more active managers of our planet’s climate, a risky commitment that may be our only hope at this point.

3) Who can do what ?

Government by taxing, regulating and punishing ? Industry by being forced to innovate and conserve ? Individuals and households by being more energy conscious, less wasteful, and better educated ?

4) What can I and what can you do in your own life ?

Cut out the waste ? Reduce energy use ? Drive less ? Shop less ? Grow your own food ? Change Diet ? Which all spells reducing your eco footprint ?

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
• National Academy of Sciences
  http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf
• US Global Change Research Program 
  http://globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
  http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html
• Climate Progress
  http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/21/hadley-study-warns-of-catastrophic-5%c2%b0c-warming-by-2100-on-current-emissions-path/

• Congressional Budget Office
  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10573/09-17-Greenhouse-Gas.pdf
• Natural Resource Defense Council
  http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/contents.asp
• Union of Concerned Scientists
  http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/climate-costs-of-inaction.html