Flash: Primary Source of Global Warming Identified!

The International Scientific Community was stunned when we at 'One Man's Earthwatch' provided evidence of the primary source of Global Warming for consideration and action.

Our new study has identified Twinkies, yes Twinkies as the primary cause of global warming... the carbon footprint of this delightful pastry is massive.

From the use of excess agricultural effort to manufacture this mostly corn-based product, and the fuel used for shipping and consumer travel to procure them...we produce huge amounts of GHG in the effort. Considering the indigestible nature of these sweet treats and the gaseous hydrocarbon release that follows their consumption, well the evidence is clear. And the fact that they are Fried at country fairs throughout the Americas pushes them into the high volume range for emitters, both through production and consumption.

Twinkies and Global Warming....the linkage is undeniable!

Now We Need To Work Together...

Either of our Presidential contenders would have the same issues on their agenda this morning...so it is no surprise that during his concession speech Gov. Mitt Romney wished President Obama luck in finding a solution for our American future... and it is greatly appreciated that he supported coming together in Congress and the Senate to make our government work.

I was also appreciative of our President's attempts to support the conservative American consortium dominated by the Republicans.

I fully agree with them both, We must work together to solve America's problems... Liberal and Conservative... North and South.... Blue and Red... we need to make our government work and hold our representatives accountable for all of our decisions.

God bless American...now roll up your sleeves, write your letters, call your elected officials and lets help them all understand what we want so that they will begin to work together.

Tuesday is a big day...

If you are registered...vote... if you know people who are registered...get them to vote... if you believe that America is important, and our path is important to the future...VOTE... do you get the point? VOTE!

An important election...

The United States is facing an important election...one that has some critical overtones for our environment and the future of our planet. While I am a believer in the importance of the United States as a leader for worldwide recover...I am concerned about the path that our Republican Party will take our nation for the next four years and the impact that that will have on world environmental conditions.

I am an advocate of improved quality of air, water and general health of our planet, but the big business the world over is focused on "profits and any cost..."

The republicans will strike down regulations that are improving our environment and that support the reduction of Carbon output to our atmosphere... sadly that will speed up global warming and will create conditions that will increase, not decrease the climate change calamities that we have been suffering as a result of the Greenhousing of our world.

Keep your fingers crossed... Obama and Romney are head to head at an even 47% ... with less than 6% of our voters set to make the decision. Remember, every vote counts... Bush and Gore was settled by less than 575 votes.

What's the Argument Against the US Navy's Sustainable Fuels Program About?

The House Took Action Against the US Navy's Use of Biofuels ...but why?

The US House of Representatives, our agency in the US Government that is in change of our money and commerce, has openly opposed the use by the US Navy of Biofuels for ship operations and for aircraft fuel. Their argument is that it is too expensive, however we can't prove the technical or operational merit of these fuels without a broader testing of them in real time exercises. Recently Congress redressed the fleet logistics teams for purchasing fuel for an extended operation  that would demonstrate the use of these bio-sources fuels and their ability to provide full operational capabilities for fleet assets. Their reason: they complained about the cost of these fuels as compared to the standard fossil fuel products that the Navy is trying to break free of.

Is there an ulterior motive? Perhaps...as the House is Republican controlled and the Republican Party is more supportive of the oil industry then the Democrats, but is this wise? Consider that a sea based fleet able to replenish its fuels from domestically sources bio fuels, or fuels produced from the sea...that type of fleet replenishment is worth its weight in  ... well, fuel! And proving the technology now, while we still have ample supplies of fossil fuels is a much better circumstance than trying to create and prove the use of these future fuels once the fossil fuel pipelines have gone dry.

Making Jet Fuel from Seawater

The seawater comes into play as a source of raw ingredients for liquid jet fuel, namely carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Though it may seem counter-intuitive, according to NRL, drawing carbon dioxide from seawater can actually be more efficient than using airborne carbon dioxide, because the concentration of carbon dioxide in seawater is 140 times greater than in air.
To split the carbon dioxide and hydrogen away from other elements in seawater, NRL has been developing an electrochemical acidification cell based on chlorine dioxide. It works by using small amounts of electricity to acidify seawater, forming sodium hydroxide.
With the carbon dioxide and hydrogen in hand, the next step is an iron-based catalyst that NRL has tweaked to reduce the production of methane gas (an undesirable byproduct) while producing more hydrocarbons called olefins. Another step in the process converts the olefins to a liquid, and a final step using nickel-based catalysts converts the liquid to a form suitable for jet fuel.
With portability in mind, the research team has been working on a self-contained system that includes a power supply, pump and other accessories, all fitting into a movable skid measuring only 3 feet wide, 5 feet long, and 5 feet high.

"Green" Fleet Refueling at Sea

So far, tests in the lab indicate that the process could produce jet fuel costing in the range of $3 to $6 per gallon. The next hurdle is to give the process a spin in open waters.

Jet Fuel from Seawater: Who Could Hate It?

Aside from the security of domestically and independently sourced fuels, non-petroleum fuel options also enable the Navy to avail itself of fuel supplies from allies around the globe. That’s especially critical as the U.S. turns its attention from the Middle East to the Pacific theater, where the Australian biofuel industry could play a key role.
With China and Japan at loggerheads over ownership of an island and Iran threatening the Strait of Hormuz, now is hardly the time for the party of “support our troops” to undermine U.S. credibility as the world’s most advanced, agile and powerful fighting force at sea.
However, that is exactly what’s happening.
Last spring, Republican leadership in Congress tried to monkeywrench the Navy’s ambitious biofuel program by prohibiting the Department of Defense from purchasing alternative fuels that cost more than conventional fuels, or from building its own biorefineries.
The Navy promptly leaped those hurdles with support from the Obama Administration, in the form of new grants for research leading to low-cost biofuels in partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and new biofuel refineries built by private sector partners.
That’s why we’re calling the seawater-to-fuel research Round 3, as the Navy ramps up its efforts to insulate its fighting forces from the logistical burden of fossil fuel and the fiscal burden of global oil markets, despite pushback against alternative fuels from, primarily, leadership in the Republican Party.

Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1onRH)

What is the Impact of Climate Change?

Climate Change is effecting us all

What is the impact of Climate Change...caused by Global Warming... on our economy? Monsoons are not new, but what is new is that they are impacting the planet through being much more forceful and lasting longer... Droughts are not new either, but their impact is becoming increasingly felt in places like the Russian and American grain regions. Corn and soy, modern crops designed to yield plenty for the world, are reported as below expected yields in most regions...wheat too...all due to Climate Change.

 

Have we (humankind) caused it? The earth is in a natural warming cycle and we didn't cause that.

 

Have we accelerated it? Yes...we have. Our inventions, mostly powered by carbon rich fuels, have released thousands of time more carbon per day than natural processes do, and as a result we have increased the heating trend. Today we are seeing massive ice melts and changes in the atmospheric currents that drive climate effects...we are impacting Climate Change and as the processes in play take an expanse of time to slow or delay...well, we can expect to see permafrost melting for the next few centuries along with all the other trends and that's just the case..

 

Monsoons are not going to go away.

So, can we change it? No, that's not in the cards...the natural warming trend covers centuries and our impact has increased the speed with which this trend is advancing. At best, if we act now to correct the carbon pollution that we are causing, and by doing that we can slow its advance ...potentially back to its natural speed, though the impact that we have registered will stay in play unless we devise ways to safely remove the greenhouse gases from our atmosphere.

What is the economic impact...well, that isn't quite clear, but consider this. On top of the agricultural impact we have to look at the coming floods. Monsoons cited here point out that natural trends are becoming worse, but in the developed world we are seeing climate impact on our waterways and more. Flooding is getting worse because rain is increasing with the change in climate flow. From that we are seeing increased insurance claims...to the tune of Billions of Dollars more per year. What we can say is that the economics of Climate Change are huge... more than we can imagine, and for those who act to correct the trend there may be economic advantage.

 

We can spotlight many impact ares ... for example...Cities are finding new threats for things like rain runoff and drainage...when the sea rises...drainage flow changes...backs up...floods whole communities... Imagine the Venice Effect occurring in Baltimore or Madrid...the bright spot of course is that a whole new trend may emerge for building boats and offering jobs as gondola operators.

 

We can't stop global warming, its a natural cycle that we will have to deal with, but we can moderate the immediate impact and slow the progression by returning to more natural carbon release levels...that we can do.

 

.

 

Investment thoughts about a Solar Bubble

A Solar Bubble is the colapse of the production base for Solar Panels...not a change in our policy for using Solar as part of our energy mix. The potential for a bubble threatens the investments that are going into this industry and the kick back that would cause against our economies.

Let's take a moment and consider the rapid global growth of solar panel development and production. Companies, nations really...have jumped on-board the Solar Express...so to speak...and are making panels at a very rapid pace. Taking Germany as an example, all new buildings must have a solar array on the roof...and in Japan they have declared that they will be off of nuclear, their primary source of electricity, by 2030...30% of their power will be solar by then ...if not more.

In the USA, as in Asia and Europe, solar farms are being developed to yield GigaWatts...and home owners are encouraged by subsidies to put their own set of panels on their rooves with payback coming from the power companies during over production periods by tieing to the grid. Those subsidies are important as they underwrite the investment for the small players...but others like Pepsi Co. have invested upwards of $40Billion...yes billion...to put solar arrays on their production facilities and eliminate their use of high priced energy...and of course they got their subsidies as well.

But there is a fight brewing in the market based on cheap pricing of panels by the Chinese government owned production facilities ...remember profit is not the main focus of Government controlled Capitalism...and companies in the developed nations are being pushed out of the market by the fully subsidized Chinese panels being shipped world wide.

While there will be strong renewable support by the solar industry in the growth of major energy production capacity, there will come a point where the solar panel production hits the ceiling and instead of breaking through it crashes back to earth. After all, home owners and small businesses expect to collect on these locally installed arrays for 20 or more years... heck, just keep the panels clean and they should continue to generate energy, there are no moving parts and the seals are virtually indestructible. While a wind storm or two, more coming every day with climate change, may call for some repairs and replacements...these panels will produce voltage as long as there is light and reserve voltage on all of those strong solar days.

The point where production falls off is the solar bubble and when it hits there will be a correction in the market. China, Germany, England, the US, and many others will feel it...and unless they have solved the low conversion ratio problem found in solar today, there will be no mass call for replacement panels and only limited productivity in these factories once the bubble breaks.

The point isn't that we will not need Solar Panel production facilities, we will...but we will not need as many fast paced producers and we will find the crush of competition unbearable as it causes business failures due to uncontrolled undercutting of prices without regard to the rules of competitive markets and free trade.

When will the bubble happen...some think it is only a few years off, I'm not sure...after all solar in America is not as exploited a technology as it could be, though it is growing faster than you might think. The real question is "would you put a solar array on your roof if it was not subsidised?" Probably not, which may drive mandating... good for the enviornment, and not bad for the economy ...but not yet being debated out loud in the House or Senate. Perhaps 20 years from now when oil is all but gone, the price of natural gas is higher than we find it today, and transportation is dependant on EV technologies to move us around...perhaps then we will see the US in a real solar push along with the others who were slow or unprepared to do it now, a shame really considering the savings that could be yielded through renewables today...but until then I expect the market will grow, and the bubble will be held off... but when it comes "there will be blood".

The bubble isn't just based on the need for electricity or future market demand...the bubble is based on the rapid ramping up to make panels today and some producers undercutting pricing, even to the point of pushing it below production cost. Afterall, if China comes to the market with their panels priced below what their costs are, can any other developed world manufacturer survive.

--

P Please consider the environment before printing this email

Considere por favor el ambiente antes de imprimir este correo electrónico

Por favor considere o ambiente antes de imprimir este e-mail

Saving the Earth is everyone's job

Time to change the graphic!

In the USA Big Oil has been taking Billions of Dollars (USD) in annual subsidies to cover "R&D Expenses"... all the while making profits in the tens of Billions of Dollars each year...renewables are the future of energy, yet government programs feed the Oil Giants while under - funding renewable R&D.

Its time to reverse the graphic!

 

Using renewables...or primarily using fossile fuels...A different view.

There are many differences between the two candidates for the Presidency this year, differences that will impact the world differently. Two that should be discussed are their differing approaches to energy policy (hope they set one) and to environmental management.

Romney seems to be more focused, as are many Republicans, on managing these two issues for the benefits they bring home today...while Obama is looking at them from more of a 'longer-term' position.

While the current administration put the brakes on drilling after the BP failure of 2010 and has been cautious about returning to open drilling, Mitt Romney has stated clearly that he will back oil's desire to drill on all federally held land...and at sea where ever they can...in order to increase production. He has also stated that he does not feel that renewables can meet our demands and that he will reduce the grant and subsidy funding for renewables once elected. The XL Pipeline will be rushed into production, and the concerns for the environment related to it will be monitored, but will not control how this project goes.

President Obama will approve the XL Pipeline, but there will be stronger controls on how it is developed...and he will increase subsidies for renewables while reducing the subsidies for oil...as these companies have been making record profits for more than the last decade.

Big industry, especially big petrochemical, opposes EPA clean air and water...and in conjunction with American Automotive they fight the need to reduce emissions and increase MPG. Though not as clear as you would hope...Romney and the republicans have again backed oil in their push forward and claim that all EPA rules are counter to the needs of Industry. And they have not included improved mileage in their platform for 2012... though it has been there for many years. Romney/Ryan is shaping up to be another pro-oil administration and one that fights to keep down the improvements that we have been pushing for in water and air quality since the formation of the EPA in the early 70s...under a Republican...Richard Nixon.

Obama has not been as supportive of the environment as anticipated, but he has been more supportive than most Republicans in the Congress would have liked. He has helped to reduce the use of coal...but has approved several coal programs that conduct "Topping" ...or the removal of mountain tops to then mine coal. New EPA air quality rules have gone into effect... not as strong as they could have been, but on track to return to our pre-Bush (W) path. Under Obama in a second term we will see less drilling on federal land than we would under Romney, however there will be increases ...and natural gas is growing which is helping to reduce the carbon footprint nationally.

Who wins? Who knows... but when talking about an all inclusive energy plan we must include renewables...and put our national research effort on this critical front. Obama is in clear support of renewables while Romney appears to be less so. As to the question of environmental management...well both have holes in their statements. But the EPA isn't against the American people, they are working for all of us to ensure that air, water, and even food is protected from toxic contamination no matter where it comes from, and in general current Democrats are more supportive of the EPA then are the Republicans. And let's face it... things like incandescent light bulbs should not be held onto just as a political point...its time for them to go.

Here are some sites to view:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/Energy_and_the_Environment/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/our-environment
http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/climate-policy-proposals-greenest-obama-romney-stein-johnson.html

Considering Things can make you Crazy!

I have been considering things lately…and you know...it can make you crazy.

For instance, why can’t the nation that is the leader in so many things not even get a strong foothold in the Global Warming arena. Arctic summer ice has been reduced to the smallest surviving sheet in all recorded history for this key feature of the world’s northern region, and yet we in the USA still challenge each other on whether or not we have Global Warming going on…

Then there is the issue of water pollution. Every one of us uses water every day…that’s 7.4-Billion of us using this key resource…yet we are willing to foul it with all sorts of things…trash, pesticides, oil and gas… what can we be thinking? Water has no substitute…yet we poison it on a regular basis, not to mention waste it… we leave our water run while we brush our teeth, we water grass for hours…every day, we wash our cloths with more detergent than needed…rinse for extended periods…ignore regulations for pumping from the shallow and even the ancient aquifers the world over…are we going to learn?

And when it comes to accepting responsibility for resource management…we step away from the game. We are the ones wasting resources…we learned it from our parents, but they were dealing with 3-Billion or 4-Billion…not 7-Billion going to 10-Billion inhabitants of Earth. Some promote environmental Stewardship over Sustainability…managing their programs with an environmental focus…for today’s world…today’s use of resources. Stewardship is not Sustainability. Sustainability is about effective management of the Environment, Economy, and Equity for generations now and into the future the world over. Why can’t we recognize that our planet is a long term engagement…4.5-Billion Years in the making…and billions of years to go before ‘Sol’ grows into a Gas Giant and ends our run.

We need to engage sustainable processes that will extend the world’s quality of life for centuries to come…not for just a few more generations. Of course, we could continue as we have been doing and then just learn to use more sun block, less water, and some type of filtration each time we inhale.

Who leads in the renewable race?

Ladies and Gentlemen...its a hands down victory for ....The Germans!

Who would have thought that the USA, with all of its initiation of patented ideas for Solar and Wind technologies, would be dragging its feet in the race for energy independence? The goal in Germany as stated in their energy plan is to be 100% powered by renewables and it looks like they will make it by 2030...off of fossil fuels by 2030. Some of their cities are at the 100% mark already. German roof tops are filling up with solar power for hot water, heating, and electricity and they are moving forward with more wind farms than they need so that the rest of Europe can benefit from low carbon energy.

Just around the corner Denmark has entire districts fueled by renewables...they call it their Free-Energy Island...even super heated water systems providing heat for entire towns in a region north of Maine in the US. 4300 residents and their entire community generating energy and selling some of it back to the mainland grid.

The US Congress, in all of their wisdom, first ignored and then voted down renewable energy legislation...making it a political issue instead of realizing that energy and pollution are part of our national security and offer millions...that's right...millions of jobs if we just get on board. One example, the third largest wind producing company in the world is Florida Power and Light, even exceeding Iberdola of Spain,...who knew. Their wholly owned subsidiary Nextera has nearly 90 wind farms in 17 states and Canada generating almost 8,570 net megawatts of energy along with solar farms, natural gas and emerging bioenergy production.

But industry funded US production in renewables is falling off in 2012 due to lack of US national commitment, and if the Republicans win the Presidency all bets are off...considering that Romney/Ryan intends to cut the $2Billion in subsidies that the renewable developers are now getting while stating a continued commitment to maintain Big Oil's 40Billion in subsidies... When they say that they have an energy policy that will use all sources they failed to mention that they took the line item about energy efficiency out of the Republican platform for 2012 and are not sponsoring any new growth or development in renewables.

What America and the world needs is to generate new jobs through the development of a renewables centered energy policy and R&D commitment that will allow us to harness our industrial power to lead the world in this industry...rather than follow it because our Congress is in a short-cycle rather than viewing America over the long term. We should be reducing CO2 emissions, and eliminating toxic emissions like mercury and NOx by focusing on efficiency and renewables...not by moving back to support Big Oil at their expense.

So let's hear it for the Germans and the Chinese too. They are leading the race with countries like the UK, Spain and Denmark moving up while the USA is holding back...apparently to give all these other industrial powers that chance to dominate in what really is the next big thing...renewable industries in a less polluted world.

800 men and women work to ensure safety...and sustainability at P&G

Proctor and Gamble is one of the world's gigantic companies with 180 facilities all over the world, and more than 4Billion customers...delivering consumer products that help us live a more comfortable, satisfying lifestyle. To ensure that they 'do not harm' ...so to speak...they have about 800 scientists, quality specialists, and environmentalists working to evaluate and ensure product safety and resource conservation.

Led by Dr Len Sauers, this team has orchestrated some real magic in their programs for sustainability and waste management...

Sauers says that in the late 90s P&G defined sustainability as "improving the quality of life for everyone…now and for generations to come…" but that today the view it as a business process, one that reduces their expenses and increases their profits...imagine that, money is the driver and it works for P&G and all of their billions of stakeholders.

P&G took a hard look at their markets and considered the question of "who will buy green products". They came to a conclusion that about 15% of customers would pay more for environmentally friendly products even with a performance drop. A central segment of 75% of consumers (mainstream) would purchase "green" if it did not cost more and worked as well. And a small group of consumers at about 10% have no concern for "green" and would not go for these products even if available.

Alternative energy is a P&G commitment...

As a result of this study P&G targets the mainstream...that 75% who want the product if it meets their 'specs'...and they do it with a product life cycle approach from Materials to manufacturing, packaging and distribution...and extending it to usage and disposal... they address all parts of the sustainable products' life cycle that helps to define the impact of the product on the community...and the environment. The most volatile of sustainable issues is consumer based usage and disposal components, as these are not controlled by the Proctor and Gamble team... though they do push the consumer edge by providing media support, advertising, and education about sustainable programs and products...like Cold Water Tide...so that the consumers know that these products work effectively and are reducing water and energy usage.

P&G packaging and bottles are being made
from plant based plastics.

The effort at P&G includes commitments to renewable energy... wind turbines on site, dedicated solar panels ... they are working to make business decisions that focus on sustainable processes and will improve the top-line and the bottom-line to help make business and the planet succeed. And their packaging is using less boxing and more plant based plastics...as well as computer modeled containers that vary in thickness to reduce material use.

Dr. Sauers' team is leading in the sustainable effort as a global corporation. He has achieved the Integrated Strategy found in  Bob Willard’s “Building the Next Sustainable Wave” in which stage 4 companies make cleaner products, apply eco-effectiveness and life-cycle stewardship, and enjoy competitive advantages from their sustainability initiatives. And with their concern for the environment I expect that they will achieve stage 5... that of Passion and Purpose driven by their values-based commitment to improve the well-being of the company, society, and the environment.

Global Warming + Climate Change = Global Climate Change

We have politicized the term Global Warming so much that it is either pegged far left or far right with how it is defined. The corner stone of this argument is the issue of human intervention in the warming process. Are we the cause, or as a minimum are we accelerating the warming trend through our excessive use (compared to natural release) of fossil fuels and the subsequent release of CO2?


Perhaps the conflict is because Al Gore championed the term Global Warming a few years ago and the world either aligned with him or pulled way back. It didn't help that a well funded group of 'Non-Believers' attempted to trash the idea by using short them cyclical data to argue against warming...some of them have now come over to the side of "change"...others remain among the opposition. Their side, however, was right to point out that scientists on the "warming" side falsified their results in reports...making things look worse than the facts supported... science is about disproving a hypothesis, not stacking the books to prove your point.

So... both sides are wrong...both sides are right...???  Coldest winters, hottest summers...ice storms in new regions...drought everywhere...   Which is it, or is there common ground? What both sides should recognize is that changes in temperature will change the flow of both water (currents are impacted by temperature) and air...jet streams being currents...so there will be changes in our weather due to warming trends.

To understand the issue we need to look to the big picture. The earth has warmed and cooled several times in the past 400 million years...with cycles that range from a millions of years apart to 6 or 7 hundred thousand years apart. And when we look at our current cycle we find that we are in a warming trend...a natural warming trend...that will result in rising seas and changing weather. The question isn't if we are in the warming trend... or for that matter if it will cool down in the future...we are and it will. The more important question is whether or not man is causing a much more rapid change to the cycle and after that...how will we survive the global change we will experience?

Perhaps we should be looking at what our rapid growth...a population of 7.4 billion humans on earth in just 15000 years (or less) ...considering that modern man (homo sapient) first evolved about 200,000 years ago and was numbered in the tens of thousands about 15000 years ago... what a rush! Are we polluting the planet? Yes...more and more every day. Are we changing the atmospheric content of CO2...you bet we are. And our commercial processes and demand for red meat are adding other pollutants like Arsenic and Methane to the atmosphere as well. So let's put that argument to rest... we are polluting and no other biological creature has ever polluted that way we do...nor has any changed the ecological balance of the earth the way we do. Man makes change, and he makes no excuses for it...for the most part we perceive change as good and inevitable. And that is one of the traps... change is neither inevitable...nor necessarily good. We need to manage change in a way that will allow mankind...that's all of us, not just those in developed nations...to survive, advance, and prosper.

We are suffering an onslaught of Global Climate Change... natural in its direction but accelerated by what man has been doing to the planet over the past 100 or so years...after all, internal combustion engines are about 100 years old and mass energy production using coal is about that same age...and the warming facts...not biased by manipulation...shows that the demands of population have forced the reality of pollution onto all of us.

What can we do about this? Simple, let's stop using all fossil fuels... right now...no exceptions! Ok, so that won't work... but what if we focus on reduced use of carbon based fuels and improved our production processes to create a sustainable future? Yes...that's doable...and it is something we can all do...and do now.

Where can we find examples of actions we can take? Start with The Earth is Blue... Sylvia Earls, or Silent Spring...Rachel Carson, or be more progressive and read Reinventing Fire... The Rockie Mountain Institute... Go to the US EPA website www.epa.gov on sustainability... look at their recommendations...or go to the European Environment Agency  http://www.eea.europa.eu for their ideas...

Step one...decide to make a difference... step two...turn off the lights...

The other day...

The other day I drove out to Clearwater Beach on the Gulf of Mexico. It was a beautiful day with a deep blue sky, a scattering of clouds, a nice population of beach goers to share the sand...not too many, just a few... sailboats on the horizon, and a parasail to punctuate the scene.

The water, as is almost always the case with the Gulf, was warmer than I like, almost as warm as the air, so there would be no long swims...though it certainly was calm enough. We wandered out about 100 meters or so to the first sandbar which put the water at about knee depth and sat on the sand.

The sand was firmly packed with that 'wave-like' surface ripple that light tides and surf generate. At first it seemed that there was no life on the bar, and there were very few shells...but as I worked my hand into the sand there came a surprise. There on the surface of the bar I discovered a juvenile queen conch with its ridged shell, beautiful with its peeks and burnished edges...and of course the mollusk peering out in curiosity to see who or what had discovered it. The shell was about 9 inches in length and about 12 in circumference. I kept it out of the water for only a few moments then sat it back down on the floor. Within minutes it was gone, digging into the sand to hide in wait for the evening when it would become an active member of the subsurface community.

We shifted positions and to my surprise discovered many more conch below the sand...dozens in fact and though we chose not to pull them from their holds, we marveled at them just the same. What else might lie below the sand in this unfamiliar habitat?

It is estimated that most of Earth's life is in the seas yet undiscovered. While there are only 250000 species of sea life recorded, we have only examined a fraction of the 80% or our world surface covered by water. Every dive yields a new discovery...plants and animal life at thousands of feet living along side methane vents, thriving on chemosynthesis and copper platelets rather than iron rich systems...fish with natural antifreeze swimming in the 28* water of the Antarctic flow...ten foot long Red-worm and whole new legions of crab swarming below light's reach.

Next time you are at the beach take a look...there is a world beyond the shore...

92% or more of the world's fresh water...

Where can you find more than 92% of the world's fresh water? Go south...as far south as you can and you come across the Antarctic Ice Sheet which is more than a half million years old and holds 92% of the fresh water in a sheet more than 3000 meters thick.

 

 What would happen if it melted? Or better than that, considering that it is melting...with huge sections breaking off and dropping off into the ocean, what will happen when it all melts? Simple really, the seas will rise by as much as 200 feet...and the world will be changed as will mankind. It would not be the first time, every Ice Age has had a subsequent warming cycle...and water marks on coastal mountain sides demonstrate water levels achieved in the past.

As the overall temperature of the planet inches up half a degree at a time we find the Arctic Summer ice receding...with projections that it will all be gone by 2050, making it a seasonal freeze instead of year round.

 

And if all that water were to end up in a warmer ocean, well there goes the fresh water in many of our rivers because they will back-flood with salt water changing the nature of things...and the planet for a long time to come.

Sustainability...So Easy...Right?

Sustainability! Kind of rolls right off your tongue...easy to say, sounds like you should know what it is, aught to be easy, right?

One would think, but I guess the first thing we need to know is what is it...followed closely by where is is. Consider this, sustainability is about everything. Director Anderson out in the City of Portland, Oregon says its simple and its not simple... everything is connected...and everything we do effects us today and it effects the generations to come tomorrow.

Sustainability is about protecting resources like the Colorado River from mining of Uranium in the Grand Canyon, or preventing radioactive dusting of cities, like Denver, that have occurred from mishandling of dangerous materials like that which occurred on September 11, 1957 when a plutonium fire broke out in Building 71 at Rocky Flats and sent a plume of plutonium oxide over most of lower Colorado ...not the only deadly contamination out of Rocky Flats during its 40 years of operation. Those two issues...the first one recently stopped by the EPA and Department of the Interior, and the second a reality that was not made public until the 70s... impacting clean air and clean water.

Or perhaps sustainability is about managing the use of fresh water in Florida's Saint Johns River where fresh water is being pulled out by communities and by companies for a variety of reasons...and at a rate so high that the brackish water at the mouth of the St Johns is now moving upriver to areas that haven't seen salt water incursion for tens of thousands of years... hope the bass like salt on their food chain!

Let's take it all a step closer to home. Sustainability is about recycling...not just the plastic bottles, but the cans and the paper too. And sorting out the food waste that can become compost...better soil for plants to grow, less waste to be dumped and managed somewhere else.

Add to that the reduced carbon footprint that we achieve when we walk to the store, bike to work, take mass transit instead of a single passenger car ride... if 10 million Americans or even more rode bikes to work...like the 10 million Hollanders do...we would save millions of gallons of gas and eliminate tons of suspended carbon.

Its an effort, no doubt about it, but sustainability is important and it will improve our lives and the lives of our future generations the world over...So Easy...maybe not...so Right...you bet.

Pacific Plastic...

Think back to the last time you were on a boat heading out to go fishing. You had a cooler with two bags of ice, several six packs held together with those plastic loops on top, sandwiches wrapped in plastic wrappers, and as usual you were smoking one after the other...assuming you smoke.

Now think about six hours later, seven fish in the catch tub, two six packs down...two more to go, and no cans on deck. Where did they go? Over the side, of course...along with the empty plastic bags and those plastic loops.

Now multiply that by a million times a day worldwide, times 20 years and you start to see what we have been doing ...just one or two of us at a time...to our oceans. Add to that the plastic bottles and the candy wrappers, the lighters...sun screen tubes...fishing line, kids' toys, beach umbrellas... you name it, we've been throwing it into the lakes, rivers, bays, oceans...

There was a time when the oceans were pristine, but that time is gone. Cities all over the world have been dumping tons of waste into the open ocean for years, so have ships, boats from fishing communities, and of course that stuff we threw into the lakes and rivers...well it flowed down to the oceans and out to sea.

As the picture shows, there are beaches the world over that are covered in trash...cause trash...especially plastic trash doesn't break down. It breaks up into smaller and smaller pieces, it gets eaten by sea life and birds, often killing them, and it prevents the micro-life forms of our seas from developing and starting the food chain process that it is central too.

Samples of ocean waters in the Pacific between California and Japan have shown that 80% of the surface is filled with plastic waste, only 20% is plankton and micro-lifeforms that are needed to feed the inhabitants at the start of the life chain.

How much plastic? MILLIONS of tons! No...Millions of millions of tons...covering surface areas in the Pacific that are twice the size of Texas... Oh, its in the Atlantic too...and the Gulf of Mexico, the Indian Ocean, the Antarctic, and the Arctic. Hell, there are even Russian submarines in the White Sea and the Kara Sea...great thought there.

And it doesn't just kill the small fish, or an occasional bird. It catches a great array of sea life in its mass, fouls whales with drifting nets, entangles everything. The oceans are no longer pristine, haven't been for near 100 years, though it took us another six decades to actually acknowledge it. Can we change it... yes, if we are willing to commit to the task. No plastic bags, no cigarette buts, no plastic bottles over the side. You take it to the boat, you bring it home and recycle it. That's a start...small as it seems...but we have to start somewhere.

Where's the XL going?

What is the status of the XL Pipeline? Simple, TransCanada started construction of the Southern Leg of the pipeline this week, having received approval from the Federal Government in July, which leads from Oklahoma to Texas and will initially be used to reduce the congestion of oil reserves in the region, but will be part of the approved international pathway once the State Department approves the entire program.

Will they approve it... the safe bet is yes, after all State approved the last version, it was the President...when challenged by Environmentalists...who delayed approval for " ...more review." This pipeline is a done deal no matter who is in the White House, the politics of jobs and oil is just too powerful to ignore. We know that America wants and needs oil, and that in the short term oil is still a key to energy efficiency, especially on the roads. And while the Obama Administration wants Alternative and Clean Energy (if there is a difference) to move forward, the realist knows that Oil is needed as the primary fuel for our vehicles for the next ten or more years. The real issue with the path of the XL Pipeline is the threat to the underlying aquifers that could be damaged when the pipeline leaks, and not whether or not we are going to build it. 

Let's face it, either it comes to Texas, or it goes to China...those oil reserves are going to be pumped no matter what, so its up to us to determine where it goes, and both Democrats and Republicans want it to 'come home'.

The XL Pipeline is part of our future, so we need to ensure that it is as safe as possible.

The next question I would ask is "Do the Republicans want Alternative and Clean Energy?" That one is also a political beast. The funding for Republicans is slick with oil. The Koch brothers are one example... they are fighting the EPA and are not supporting the use of Clean technologies. Others like Exxon/Mobile are not on board with Alternatives either...unlike BP and Shell who are building Wind and Solar projects, Exxon is still focusing on Oil and Natural Gas...though they are researching Biomass solutions which may prove a solution in their own right. The point here...pre-Obama Administrations tended to be Oil-Babies... and it is looking like Romney/Ryan will be taking the same path if they get the chance.

What do you think... Oil and Gas...Alternatives... or both?

More On Pipeline Leaks!

Embridge Co., the same Canadian company responsible for the 2010 oil leak in Michigan...the same one mentioned a few posts back... has again had a leak, this one in Wisconsin. What was it I said,  "...all Pipelines leak..." or something like that.

“Enbridge is treating this situation as a top priority,” said Richard Adams, vice president of U.S. Operations. “We are bringing all necessary resources to bear. Our immediate focus is on keeping our workers and the public safe as we work to remove the oil and clean up the site.”

This spill was only 1200 barrels... ONLY?... that's more than 50,000 gallons... and there hasn't been an explanation yet as to how or why this leak occurred. Enbridge reportedly had had an oil leak in Alberta, Canada a month ago and in 2010 some of its oil got into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. That report of Some of its oil getting into the Kalamazoo River...that was 200,000 gallons, now that's what I call "Some".

The TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline project, which will move millions of gallons of oil-sands oil from Canada to Texas if and when approved, is a Canadian-American cooperative project but does not use Enbridge as a prime contractor. The XL pipeline is on hold due to "additional screening" of hazards for polluting the Ogallala Aquifer that runs from South Dakota to Texas and is part of the High Plains Aquifer System threatened by the XL. The State Department approved the project, but the White House has delayed it for additional review... possibly due to Environmentalist opposition during an election year. Either way, we should expect the XL to be approved in one form or another...and when it is let's keep in mind..."All Pipelines Leak!"

P&G...Impacting Taicang, China...

Proctor and Gamble, or P&G to most of us, has one of their newest factories in Taicang China. This facility is designed to:

• Minimize water consumption while maximizing water re-use by recovering steam condensate for domestic water needs and harvesting rainwater to replenish on-site landscaping water.

Funny story though... told to me by a senior member of P&G's Sustainability Team... It seems that the Taicang facility takes in water from the river for use in process and manufacturing, and as part of their corporate goals they have been told to use less water and to recycle it, after treatment, back to the river so that there is near zero impact on the environment.

The Facilities Team at Taicang have complained...they don't know why they should use less water. You see P&G cleans the water taken in before they use it, then they treat it before they put it back in the river. In fact the water that they put back into the river is cleaner than the water drawn in for use in production processes, and because they reclaim it in their processes before treatment and recycling...they put back almost as much as they use, but the water that they put back is cleaner than the river water and therefore they don't understand why they should use less. The insiders think they are helping the environment by using and returning the P&G process water...

Hard to argue...GO P&G!

Are the Terms Sustainability and Environmentalism Interchangable?

Interesting question... we keep hearing Sustainability as a current "Buzz Word"... everyone is trying to be sustainable... but is it all about the Environment?

So tell me... If you are a company like ...oh, say Walt Disney Company...who makes a great deal of its profits from 'retail sales' with all of the cardboard and plastic packaging and the ...thousands of miles of shipboard and eighteen wheeler transportation ...shipments from producers in China and Indonesia and other sites worldwide, going to places like the US or France and Japan... but you support the movie production of "The Earth" or "Oceans" or most recently "Chimpanzees", all in your environmental genera... are you really undertaking a Sustainable, ethical conscious path?

Environmentalism is not necessarily Sustainability in action. Saving trees in the US on either side of our Interstate Highways...yet clear cutting in the heart of the forest...NOT SUSTAINABLE! And ignoring the elimination of the Ancient Rain Forests in the under developed world (Indonesia, Brazil, Africa...) ...HEY....O2 comes from Trees...CO2 is taken in by them. Basic Science, even if our Science classes are failing. Sustainability calls on us finding a solution that works, one that is equitable for the citizens of all nations…not just developed nations.

Sustainability is about Environment.... but it is also about Economics and Equity (generation after generation) and it is worldwide, not just sun-lights on Walmarts...Sustainability means saving water in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East...oh, and in North America too; its about Cleaning the air in India; ensuring food will grow where we need it...for an ever increasing world population...9+ Billion by 2050. But it is also about jobs and the ability to secure a meaningful life…now and into the future…for all of us.

Or what about our Federal Agencies...like the Council on Environmental Quality...some heavy hitters who work for the Executive Branch...are they about Sustainability? Recently I asked them what they thought the definition was for Sustainability, and as of today I am still waiting for an answer. Their web presence shows they are about the Environment, but no real discussion about a plan for a Sustainable future...

Before we award anymore Trophies to the Koch Brothers or, Disney, BASF, Camargo Correa in Brazil, or the Power Companies the world over… we need to look at what they are doing to ensure Earth's Sustainable Future. Water preservation...but also aquifer management, Reduced production generated air particulate...but also cleaner air through localized chemical applications of their products, Reduced use of Coal... but also increased investment into alternative energy sourcing...of all types, not just Natural Gas…and we need to do it now...not when we can't fix the problems our increasing Carbon Footprint is causing.

No, Environmentalism is not Sustainability…not by half… and Sustainability, with its three pillars, is what we need.

Research....Not for the Detail-Challenged!

Recently while working on a NSF Grant funded project, looking at systems destroyed by natural disaster and the impact tragedies like earthquakes and tornadoes have on the environment, I found myself thinking about just how important research is. You see, numbers by themselves…number hurt, wind speed, dollars of damage…are only facts. They don’t yield solutions that help us to establish strategies and procedures that we can use in future disaster response efforts…that takes research to gather all the facts and then analysis that finds the trends, the causes, and the threats which provide the tools we need for the future.

Research counts!

What's Up With Coal?

In 2005 between 50 and 60% of electricity produced in the United States was generated by burning coal; today about 500 power plants use coal nationally to produce about 35% of our electricity. These plants continue to be the leading cause of smog, acid rain, and air toxics in our country and worldwide where an even higher percentage of power plants use coal.

How bad is the pollution released by a coal burning plant? Well in an average year, a typical coal plant generates:

  

• 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
• 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
• 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
• 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
• 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
• 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
• 170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
• 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
• 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

The Clean Air Act, not withstanding, Big Coal has hardly conceded defeat in this multifront war between a safe environment and the economic impact of regulations (both which impact us all).

The industry has increased political campaign contributions in the last four years to historic levels, with 80 percent of those annual donations going to Republicans…or $4,039,018.00 as compared to $800,000.00 to Democrats in 2011, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Companies like Arch Coal, which used to spend only about $100,000 a year on lobbyists in Washington, invested $5.7 million to push its case during the first three years of the Obama administration.

And even as American Electric Power plans to close 5 of its 21 coal-burning plants and rely much more on natural gas, it still intends to retrofit 12 plants. That means it will be burning coal for years to come. A rise in natural gas prices could also slow the decline of coal as a power source. So the company has joined with old allies in Washington to try to delay the new rules and block any future ones.

The industry and its supporters have also gone to court, filing lawsuits challenging E.P.A. rules that limit pollution from coal-burning plants from crossing state lines and the mountaintop mining rules that are holding up new permits in Kentucky and West Virginia — legal fights that the industry has had some success with so far.

If you care about this issue ...either side...you need to be speaking with your State and Federal representatives...voice your opinion to make a difference.

Katherine Gajewski, a Greenworks example...

It was my pleasure today to spend some time talking with Katherine Gajewski, Director of the Mayor’s Office on Sustainability for the City of Philadelphia.

This was a pleasure for me because Director Gajewski is leading Philadelphia to a very effective future by engaging sustainability and its five pillars, as they like to view it, of energy, environment, equity, economy, and engagement. If every city, large...medium...or small, were to take up action similar to the cost saving actions initiated by Philadelphia in their Greenworks Philadelphia program I am confident that we would meet our future national goals and then exceed them...all ahead of schedule.

Director Gajewski, thanks for the time...and I look forward to watching where you take your city in the future.

Sustainable Retail and MFG Suppliers

There is a growing community of Retail and Product Manufacturers who are striving to improve their Sustainable Profile through reduced carbon footprints and improved Supply Chain Management...Here are those selected by a body of Sustainability Experts in their 2011 Survey.

These results equate to Millions of Tons of reduced Carbon...sustainability on the move!

Time after time...Pipelines Leak!

Pipelines leak…and poor operations and failures to correct degraded systems makes it worse.

Federal regulators proposed a $3.7 million civil penalty Monday against the Canadian owner of a pipeline that ruptured in 2010, dumping more than 800 million gallons of oil into a southwestern Michigan river.

Michigan Pipeline Spill-2010

The U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said the penalty against Enbridge Inc. would be the largest it has imposed. In a letter to the company, the agency listed 24 violations of hazardous liquid pipeline regulations, including failure to fix corrosion problems in the damaged pipe joint discovered as far back as 2004.

It took more than 17 hours to realize that the pipe line had ruptured…and during that time an additional 678000 gallons were dumped into the Kalamazoo River… finally detecting the breach after trying to restart the pipeline twice creating surges that made the disaster worse, even though there were numerous alarms and indications that there was a serious leak in progress.

It is this type of leak that has caused the Federal Government to delay the decision process on current pipeline requests.

Code Enforcement Beware!

Is this how it was done at Walden Pond?

Environmental Expense: Understand The Responsibility To The Environment

Beginning in 1942, Hooker Chemicals and Plastics (now Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)) established a landfill which was used for the disposal of over 21,000 tons of various chemical wastes, including halogenated organics, pesticides, chlororbenzenes and dioxin. Dumping ceased in 1952, and, in 1953, the landfill was covered and deeded to the Niagara Falls Board of Education (NFBE). While the dump was not effectively developed, which resulted in failed containment, the deeding of the property…a sale at the price of $1…properly reported the waste site and excluded Hooker Chemical from most liability. 

Subsequently, the area near the covered landfill was extensively developed, including the construction of an elementary school and numerous homes.

By the early sixties contamination began to emerge from the 16 acre chemical waste site, later to be identified in 1978 by NY state’s EPA as a hazard and evacuated, and then taken over by the US EPA as a Superfund Waste Site, prosecuted and managed for 21 years from 1983 to 2004 as one of the most noteworthy examples of environmental distress in the history of the United States… at least one that we can point our fingers at as an example of public adoption of an industrial environmental expense.

In 1995 the EPA suit against Occidental Chemical Corporation was finalized and OCC was charged a settlement totaling $129M to meet the claims against Hooker Chemical.

 Attorney General Janet Reno said the settlement "should send a message of federal persistence and tenacity."

"If Congress will give us the resources, we will work to get polluters to pay their share," said Reno. She noted that Congress is currently attempting to cut environmental enforcement.

The cost however for the Love Canal cleanup has been estimated at $250 million, though no one knows for sure. Studies indicated that numerous toxic chemicals migrated into surrounding areas. Runoff drained into the Niagara River, contaminating the river sediment. Dioxin and other contaminants migrated from the landfill to the existing sewers, which drained into nearby creeks. Those sediments are recognizable today in samples taken from these waterways.

Ironically, twelve years after the neighborhood was abandoned, the state of New York approved plans to allow families to move back to the area, and homes were allowed to be sold. In 2004 the EPA removed the site from the Superfund list…

These red dots represent current Superfund Sites.

Love Canal is not the only hazardous waste site in the country that has become a threat to humans--only the best known. Indeed, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that up to 2,000 hazardous waste disposal sites in the United States may pose "significant risks to human health or the environment," and has called the toxic waste problem "one of the most serious problems the nation has ever faced."

This is a prime example of industry benefiting from the environmental expense that comes from manufacturing. Air pollution, contamination, water waste and pollution are just the start of the list that needs to be compiled and the effects that need to be corrected so that we better understand how to become a sustainable planet…now and into the future. It isn’t about taxing industry to solve non-industrial problems. Its about correcting the problems caused by oversight and intentional pollution and waste that is experienced when organizations fail to understand their responsibility to the environment.