20 March 2007
500,000 Strong
Al Gore will testify in Congress tomorrow regarding global warming, as previously discussed on this blog. Click this link to add your name to his message (quick and easy). He's at somewhere over 400,000 strong now, and needs you to get him to half a million.
In a related note, the Politico asks: Can Gore Let it Rip? The conclusions is, essentially, that Gore should run, and probably will, barring a definite tilt of the race toward either Obama or Clinton. As long as they are pretty much neck and neck, there is room for Gore.
In a related note, the Politico asks: Can Gore Let it Rip? The conclusions is, essentially, that Gore should run, and probably will, barring a definite tilt of the race toward either Obama or Clinton. As long as they are pretty much neck and neck, there is room for Gore.
Labels: al gore, global warming
¶ 8:41 AM 0 comments
14 March 2007
Fox News Reports Critical Threats
by: J-lo
Almost certainly we all know by now that global warming is not a pressing issue, at least not like it is in other countries!
I can understand why global warming is not a center piece of American politics, particularly considering our continued success in Iraq, the recent capture of Osama, and political honesty; however, on the bright side we did come ahead of the Ukraine when asked if global warming is an immediate threat. According to the survey , about 46% of those Americans question regarded global warming as a critical threat, whereas only 33% in the Ukraine agreed.
What caught my eye as the diamond in the rough was that similar to other developing countries, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 61% of Iranians surveyed had strong opinions of global warming and viewed it as something urgent. Though not disclosed in the article, the survey also found that over 86% of Iranians considered global warming more of ominous than the threats of President Bush and Co. I wonder how the President is receiving that?
Maybe some teamwork will help, and force us to be a little more concerned about global warming than the Iranians or Aussies! At the least we can pretend on Earth Day.
UPDATE:
I would like to respond to a brief comment that was posted regarding the above survey. The reader stated:
As for the E.U. comment, I have no ability of addressing that since I was not called in as a consultant to conduct the survey. According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs though, the survey was originally conducted in the US, India and China, and as a result several organizations in the remaining countries expressed an interest in participating. End result - the 17 countries involved and no E.U. Though disappointing that the E.U. cared not to participate I think it is important to note that the 17 countries listed represent over 55% of the world population and are some of the leaders in greenhouse gas production. For those interested in numbers I suggest looking here.
Furthermore if we look at the chart below, one can conclude that the E.U. has been taking measures to curb greenhouse gas production since 1990, whereas for the US and China there has been a jump.
Of course I do not want to blame the American people for such, as we are not at fault. What is necessary is that our government quit giving out royalties to nasty polluters and begin taxing them heavily for the amount of CO2 produced. Though unlikely, President Bush needs to provide more incentives to companies to go green and further investigate the option of capturing and storing CO2 emissions.
Almost certainly we all know by now that global warming is not a pressing issue, at least not like it is in other countries!
I can understand why global warming is not a center piece of American politics, particularly considering our continued success in Iraq, the recent capture of Osama, and political honesty; however, on the bright side we did come ahead of the Ukraine when asked if global warming is an immediate threat. According to the survey , about 46% of those Americans question regarded global warming as a critical threat, whereas only 33% in the Ukraine agreed.
What caught my eye as the diamond in the rough was that similar to other developing countries, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 61% of Iranians surveyed had strong opinions of global warming and viewed it as something urgent. Though not disclosed in the article, the survey also found that over 86% of Iranians considered global warming more of ominous than the threats of President Bush and Co. I wonder how the President is receiving that?
Maybe some teamwork will help, and force us to be a little more concerned about global warming than the Iranians or Aussies! At the least we can pretend on Earth Day.
UPDATE:
I would like to respond to a brief comment that was posted regarding the above survey. The reader stated:
uh, we also came ahead of most of the countries on that chart, including israel, not just the ukraine. plus there's no EU representation on your chart so I don't get the point.Clearly the US did come ahead of some countries, however, my point and the point of the survey was to address those who viewed global warming as a critical issue or threat. If we examine the portion of the graph that is in blue then we see that most of the countries surveyed do feel global warming is a critical threat rather than just another fly on the wall. As for the Ukraine, I think they are still concerned more about contamination and birth defects due to Chernobyl than global warming - and trust me I don't blame them!
As for the E.U. comment, I have no ability of addressing that since I was not called in as a consultant to conduct the survey. According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs though, the survey was originally conducted in the US, India and China, and as a result several organizations in the remaining countries expressed an interest in participating. End result - the 17 countries involved and no E.U. Though disappointing that the E.U. cared not to participate I think it is important to note that the 17 countries listed represent over 55% of the world population and are some of the leaders in greenhouse gas production. For those interested in numbers I suggest looking here.
Furthermore if we look at the chart below, one can conclude that the E.U. has been taking measures to curb greenhouse gas production since 1990, whereas for the US and China there has been a jump.
Of course I do not want to blame the American people for such, as we are not at fault. What is necessary is that our government quit giving out royalties to nasty polluters and begin taxing them heavily for the amount of CO2 produced. Though unlikely, President Bush needs to provide more incentives to companies to go green and further investigate the option of capturing and storing CO2 emissions.
Labels: fun surveys, global warming, Iran
¶ 9:37 PM 4 comments
06 March 2007
Mr. Gore goes back to Washington
On March 21, Al Gore will go to Washington to testify before Congress on global warming. This will be a media bonanza, and in that way, extremely important to further raise awareness on an issue that is already approaching the tipping point. As an introduction to his testimony, Gore is planning to hand deliver postcards to individual representatives from the constituents, demanding action global warming. Fill out your own postcard for Gore to deliver here (it's fast).
Labels: global warming
¶ 11:15 AM 0 comments
05 March 2007
The Ethanol Revolution
by J-lo
With President Bush traveling to Brazil this Thursday to discuss with Brazilian President Lula the opportunities of an international market for ethanol, we are left to wonder when the ethanol revolution will make its appearance before citizens of the US and furthermore, will it truly make an environmental difference.
For over a quarter of a century, Brazil has been processing sugar cane to produce ethanol, a viable alternative to petroleum, that in recent years has nearly equaled petroleum as a source of automobile fuel for Brazilian commuters. Yet, if the United States were to import and produce sufficient ethanol to compensate 20% of our petroleum consumption like Bush is proposing, will countries like Brazil, and farmers like Old MacDonald be able to keep stride? According to studies the US currently consumes over 250 BILLION gallons of fuel in transit alone. How is it that something like corn or sugar cane can even approach that number when current corn ethanol production is a meager 5.58 billion gallons per year or 2.6 billion bushels?
I'm not arguing that ethanol is not a viable alternative to petroleum since it's been proven to produce less CO2 than current petroleum emissions, and offers struggling campesinos and local US farmers the opportunity to access a new and growing market. Ethanol may provide the answer to how countries in Central and South America can further develop and expand there economies, and lastly can assure some energy security and permit the U.S.A to slowly break ties with OPEC while strengthening relationships with several Latin American nations.
Yet does driving a flex-fuel automobile make one more environmentally friendly or more American? We've all heard about the wonders of biofuels, but have we ignored the fact that 20% of current petroleum consumption would require the equivalent of 50 billion gallons of corn or cane ethanol (how many acres of monoculture farming would that require)? Considering current agricultural techniques there is no possible way a farmer could sustainably cultivate a monoculture farm of solely corn and be heavily dependent on petroleum derived fertilizers and hazardous pesticides. Something has to give. Turning our attention to Brazil, we can already witness the impact of ethanol based crops in the destruction of virgin forests and contamination of watersheds solely to meet national demand for ethanol (please note Brazil is currently unable to export ethanol due to extraordinary high US tariffs).
With President Bush traveling to Brazil this Thursday to discuss with Brazilian President Lula the opportunities of an international market for ethanol, we are left to wonder when the ethanol revolution will make its appearance before citizens of the US and furthermore, will it truly make an environmental difference.
For over a quarter of a century, Brazil has been processing sugar cane to produce ethanol, a viable alternative to petroleum, that in recent years has nearly equaled petroleum as a source of automobile fuel for Brazilian commuters. Yet, if the United States were to import and produce sufficient ethanol to compensate 20% of our petroleum consumption like Bush is proposing, will countries like Brazil, and farmers like Old MacDonald be able to keep stride? According to studies the US currently consumes over 250 BILLION gallons of fuel in transit alone. How is it that something like corn or sugar cane can even approach that number when current corn ethanol production is a meager 5.58 billion gallons per year or 2.6 billion bushels?
I'm not arguing that ethanol is not a viable alternative to petroleum since it's been proven to produce less CO2 than current petroleum emissions, and offers struggling campesinos and local US farmers the opportunity to access a new and growing market. Ethanol may provide the answer to how countries in Central and South America can further develop and expand there economies, and lastly can assure some energy security and permit the U.S.A to slowly break ties with OPEC while strengthening relationships with several Latin American nations.
Yet does driving a flex-fuel automobile make one more environmentally friendly or more American? We've all heard about the wonders of biofuels, but have we ignored the fact that 20% of current petroleum consumption would require the equivalent of 50 billion gallons of corn or cane ethanol (how many acres of monoculture farming would that require)? Considering current agricultural techniques there is no possible way a farmer could sustainably cultivate a monoculture farm of solely corn and be heavily dependent on petroleum derived fertilizers and hazardous pesticides. Something has to give. Turning our attention to Brazil, we can already witness the impact of ethanol based crops in the destruction of virgin forests and contamination of watersheds solely to meet national demand for ethanol (please note Brazil is currently unable to export ethanol due to extraordinary high US tariffs).
"Some of the cane plantations are the size of European states, these vast monocultures have replaced important eco-systems," he said. "If you see the size of the plantations in the state of Sao Paolo they are oceans of sugar cane. In order to harvest you must burn the plantations which creates a serious air pollution problem in the city."The debate over ethanol as a sustainable U.S. energy supply can continue for months by bringing into question the food versus fuel debate and "the tortilla crisis" that subsequently sparked protests in Mexico City. In summary ethanol is good but not good enough to save the Earth and the atmosphere. I agree with Bush and Lula that an international market for ethanol is necessary; however, it must be done sustainably and in a manner that will not destroy necessary food systems, and social and ecological environments. Ethanol, perhaps, is only a temporary solution to our present predicament of oil dependency and global warming and not as some would state the future of automotive fuel. The President and Congress must continue pushing for more research and development into alternative renewable sources such as hydrogen fuel cell and electric and discuss opportunities for designing cheaper versions of the sporty $100k Tesla!
Labels: ethanol, global warming, politics
¶ 8:50 PM 0 comments
26 February 2007
“Paper or Plastic, Mr. Gore?”
by J-lo
My recent journey to Whole Foods may have shed some light on that age-old dispute between the Gozdilla and Mothra of the grocery industry, Paper and Plastic. Typically, when at the cash register you expect the timeless question of “Paper or Plastic?” However, it seems Whole Foods - and possibly more supermarkets - are doing away with the paper and only supplying the plastic. But, why? Is plastic, a derivative of petroleum, honestly more sustainable, greener and more granola than paper?
A simple side-by-side comparison and one would anticipate paper the champion of grocery bags (of course I am excluding from this test canvas, which is the true champion of greens). Think for a second about the history of each, the lives of Plastic and Paper. Paper’s dates back to its birth on a monoculture tree plantation, most likely in the Northwest region of the U.S.A or possibly B.C., Canada. Plastic, on the other hand, was born in a factory and created by the virtues of petroleum. As their lives dwindle, Paper typically sees its role reutilized, whereas Plastic finds itself as a decoration of sorts around the neck of a seagull or leatherback turtle.
For years, I have personally chosen Paper as the more earth-friendly option; however, after my Whole Foods experience and recent investigation I have discovered Plastic as the true winner. According to a life-cycle energy analysis conducted by Franklin and Associations, Ltd, Plastic outmaneuvers Paper two to one. In order to achieve the results, Franklin and Associations analyzed total energy used to manufacture a bag, and the amount of pollutants produced. The results of the the analysis stated:
“What would Al Gore do?”
Clearly, there is one simple answer: refuse both paper and plastic and bring along your favorite canvas bag. I'm a canvas-user but I must admit that there are moments when I am on my way home from work and have an itch to pick up some groceries yet never thought to bring along the Canvas. On the other hand, the grocery bag industry could take it upon them self and manufacture biodegradable bags made from starches. Yet once again, we face obstacles that may result in individuals becoming too litter friendly, or witness more energy utilized for the creation of a “biodegradable bag.”
Being sustainable is difficult; however, each of us must attempt to do our part and at a minimum utilize Canvas and save our Plastic and Paper. However if one truly wants to be an eco-warrior the only solution is growing your own veggies and knitting yourself a sustainable hemp bag. In short B.Y.O.B. – bring your own bag, bake your own bread!
[ed. note (Cicero): that's not the fun kind of byob, man]
My recent journey to Whole Foods may have shed some light on that age-old dispute between the Gozdilla and Mothra of the grocery industry, Paper and Plastic. Typically, when at the cash register you expect the timeless question of “Paper or Plastic?” However, it seems Whole Foods - and possibly more supermarkets - are doing away with the paper and only supplying the plastic. But, why? Is plastic, a derivative of petroleum, honestly more sustainable, greener and more granola than paper?
A simple side-by-side comparison and one would anticipate paper the champion of grocery bags (of course I am excluding from this test canvas, which is the true champion of greens). Think for a second about the history of each, the lives of Plastic and Paper. Paper’s dates back to its birth on a monoculture tree plantation, most likely in the Northwest region of the U.S.A or possibly B.C., Canada. Plastic, on the other hand, was born in a factory and created by the virtues of petroleum. As their lives dwindle, Paper typically sees its role reutilized, whereas Plastic finds itself as a decoration of sorts around the neck of a seagull or leatherback turtle.
For years, I have personally chosen Paper as the more earth-friendly option; however, after my Whole Foods experience and recent investigation I have discovered Plastic as the true winner. According to a life-cycle energy analysis conducted by Franklin and Associations, Ltd, Plastic outmaneuvers Paper two to one. In order to achieve the results, Franklin and Associations analyzed total energy used to manufacture a bag, and the amount of pollutants produced. The results of the the analysis stated:
A single paper bag uses the energy equivalent of 550 kJ of wood as feedstock. It also uses 500 kJ of petroleum and 350 kJ of coal for process energy. The total amount of energy used by a single paper bag is 1,680 kJ…Two plastic bags use 990 kJ of natural gas, 240 kJ of petroleum, and 160 kJ of coal. The energy used for two plastic bags is 1,470 kJ. Two plastic bags use 87% the amount of energy used by one paper.Now for the all-important question we must all ask ourselves next time we are at the check out counter of the local grocers:
“What would Al Gore do?”
Clearly, there is one simple answer: refuse both paper and plastic and bring along your favorite canvas bag. I'm a canvas-user but I must admit that there are moments when I am on my way home from work and have an itch to pick up some groceries yet never thought to bring along the Canvas. On the other hand, the grocery bag industry could take it upon them self and manufacture biodegradable bags made from starches. Yet once again, we face obstacles that may result in individuals becoming too litter friendly, or witness more energy utilized for the creation of a “biodegradable bag.”
Being sustainable is difficult; however, each of us must attempt to do our part and at a minimum utilize Canvas and save our Plastic and Paper. However if one truly wants to be an eco-warrior the only solution is growing your own veggies and knitting yourself a sustainable hemp bag. In short B.Y.O.B. – bring your own bag, bake your own bread!
[ed. note (Cicero): that's not the fun kind of byob, man]
Labels: global warming, sustainability
¶ 5:12 PM 0 comments
