Monday - April 02, 2007
Supreme Court: Still slightly rational
The Supreme
Court rules 5-4 that the EPA can regulate
CO2
emissions, and the states have standing to make it
act.
Once again, Justice Kennedy parts company with his hard right brethren. It would have been mightily entertaining to watch the internal debate about this one, assuming these people even talk to each other anymore. It seems that every time the right seems on the verge of pushing this country's legal system permanently into the dark ages, one Justice gets repelled and opts for near sanity. The string is running out though. If Bush gets another appointment, and Joe Lieberman lets him through, then we're in for a rough ride.
Maybe Justice Kennedy saw An Inconvenient Truth and decided that he'd rather his grandchildren live in a decent world than uphold the right of George Bush to be an idiot.
Once again, Justice Kennedy parts company with his hard right brethren. It would have been mightily entertaining to watch the internal debate about this one, assuming these people even talk to each other anymore. It seems that every time the right seems on the verge of pushing this country's legal system permanently into the dark ages, one Justice gets repelled and opts for near sanity. The string is running out though. If Bush gets another appointment, and Joe Lieberman lets him through, then we're in for a rough ride.
Maybe Justice Kennedy saw An Inconvenient Truth and decided that he'd rather his grandchildren live in a decent world than uphold the right of George Bush to be an idiot.
Monday - March 19, 2007
Carbon footprints
Yet another example of Europe, and particularly
Great Britain, being ahead of us on the global warming issue. Products in Great
Britain may soon be bearing a "carbon footprint" label, according to the
Independent (Carbon
footprint of products to be displayed on label package
):
The Carbon Trust is launching a green equivalent to the Fairtrade label - a consumer label which details the carbon footprint of a product and a commitment by its producer to reduce it.
Several major brand products, including Walkers crisps (carbon footprint: 75g), Boots Organics shampoo (148g) and Innocent smoothies (294g), will test the use of the logo - a white arrow wrapped in a black letter C. Over time it is expected that many more will join, raising the prospect that products might be marketed on the basis that they have the lowest carbon footprint in their marketplace.
This sounds like a great idea, though it's important that people remember that the figures only have meaning in relation to like products. You definitely can't compare apples to oranges. Bad example, I suppose if apples had a really disproportionate impact you could eat just oranges. The absolute value of a product's carbon footprint doesn't tell you that much about that product's overall impact, since so many other factors go into assessing that impact. Potato chips get eaten in a day, and a given consumer might buy a bag a week. That's 75g times 52. A durable item, like a toaster, might have a footprint of 500g (I'm making this up, so don't hold me to it), but I'm not likely to buy another one for five years or more. The net impact of the toaster is lower though the footprint of a single product is greater. It's important that people realize that. Getting back to the toaster, you also have to count the carbon footprint involved in the use of the product. The impact of eating the chips is presumably zero (excluding emissions from the eater), but the toaster produces carbon each time you use it.
At least based on the information in the article, it looks like the disclosed carbon footprint is based solely on the carbon generated in the supply chain leading to the finished product. There might be some products, (back to toasters again) that use up more carbon in the manufacturing process, but use far less when they are used.
Quibbles aside, it's a good idea that would should think about emulating.
The Carbon Trust is launching a green equivalent to the Fairtrade label - a consumer label which details the carbon footprint of a product and a commitment by its producer to reduce it.
Several major brand products, including Walkers crisps (carbon footprint: 75g), Boots Organics shampoo (148g) and Innocent smoothies (294g), will test the use of the logo - a white arrow wrapped in a black letter C. Over time it is expected that many more will join, raising the prospect that products might be marketed on the basis that they have the lowest carbon footprint in their marketplace.
This sounds like a great idea, though it's important that people remember that the figures only have meaning in relation to like products. You definitely can't compare apples to oranges. Bad example, I suppose if apples had a really disproportionate impact you could eat just oranges. The absolute value of a product's carbon footprint doesn't tell you that much about that product's overall impact, since so many other factors go into assessing that impact. Potato chips get eaten in a day, and a given consumer might buy a bag a week. That's 75g times 52. A durable item, like a toaster, might have a footprint of 500g (I'm making this up, so don't hold me to it), but I'm not likely to buy another one for five years or more. The net impact of the toaster is lower though the footprint of a single product is greater. It's important that people realize that. Getting back to the toaster, you also have to count the carbon footprint involved in the use of the product. The impact of eating the chips is presumably zero (excluding emissions from the eater), but the toaster produces carbon each time you use it.
At least based on the information in the article, it looks like the disclosed carbon footprint is based solely on the carbon generated in the supply chain leading to the finished product. There might be some products, (back to toasters again) that use up more carbon in the manufacturing process, but use far less when they are used.
Quibbles aside, it's a good idea that would should think about emulating.
Saturday - March 17, 2007
Climate saving device
Yet another reminder that global warming is a
problem that can be addressed if we just put our minds to it, and are just a wee
bit flexible. From the Guardian,
we learn that British engineers have invented an inexpensive device that will
significantly reduce the energy needs of refrigerators and
freezers.
It is made of wax, is barely three inches across and comes in any colour you like, as long as it's black. And it could save more greenhouse gas emissions than taxes on gas guzzling cars, low energy light bulbs and wind turbines on houses combined. It is the e-cube, and it is coming soon to a fridge near you.
Invented by British engineers, the £25 gadget significantly reduces the amount of energy used by fridges and freezers, which are estimated to consume about a fifth of all domestic electricity in the UK. If one was fitted to each of the 87 million refrigeration units in Britain, carbon dioxide emissions would fall by more than 2 million tonnes a year.
Most refrigerator thermostats are interested in the temperature of the air in the refrigerator, which can increase quite rapidly when the door is opened. They will immediately turn on to cool that warmer air. The food inside does not warm up as rapidly as the air, so it is largely unaffected by the transient temperature change that affects the air. The device, which apparently can be retrofitted onto existing equipment, mimics the temperature of the food in the fridge or freezer and the thermostat only turns the fridge on in response to changes in food temperature. The device will be especially useful in large applications, like supermarkets, where the doors are opened more frequently than in houses.
It really would be so refreshing if we simply applied our brains to this problem instead of arguing about whether the problem exists at all.
It is made of wax, is barely three inches across and comes in any colour you like, as long as it's black. And it could save more greenhouse gas emissions than taxes on gas guzzling cars, low energy light bulbs and wind turbines on houses combined. It is the e-cube, and it is coming soon to a fridge near you.
Invented by British engineers, the £25 gadget significantly reduces the amount of energy used by fridges and freezers, which are estimated to consume about a fifth of all domestic electricity in the UK. If one was fitted to each of the 87 million refrigeration units in Britain, carbon dioxide emissions would fall by more than 2 million tonnes a year.
Most refrigerator thermostats are interested in the temperature of the air in the refrigerator, which can increase quite rapidly when the door is opened. They will immediately turn on to cool that warmer air. The food inside does not warm up as rapidly as the air, so it is largely unaffected by the transient temperature change that affects the air. The device, which apparently can be retrofitted onto existing equipment, mimics the temperature of the food in the fridge or freezer and the thermostat only turns the fridge on in response to changes in food temperature. The device will be especially useful in large applications, like supermarkets, where the doors are opened more frequently than in houses.
It really would be so refreshing if we simply applied our brains to this problem instead of arguing about whether the problem exists at all.
Wednesday - March 07, 2007
Green roofs
If and when Wal-Mart wins its appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision to refuse to let it rape a big chunk of land next
to the reservoir, maybe it should be required to build a green
roof. Better yet, maybe we should require such roofs on all big box
stores and other large
buildings.
From the U.S. Food and Drug Administration building in Washington DC to Heinz Corporate head quarters in Pittsburgh, an increasing number of buildings are swapping shingles for sedums. The movement is called green roofing, but far from an industrial paint job, it evolves around technology that's ecologically-sound - and proving so useful that cities like Portland, Oregon, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, and the entire state of Maryland are eagerly exploiting the potential of this once forgotten façade.
"This technology offers us an opportunity to significantly improve not only the way our buildings operate, but to utilize wasted spaces - there are millions of square miles," says Steven Peck, founder and president of Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, an organization established to increase awareness of green roof benefits. GRHC also hopes to advance the market in North America. "The roofing industry is just at the beginning of a process of transformation. Nothing can match the range of social, economic and environmental benefits green roofs provide."
As the name implies, green roofs are roofs made of plants. They're comprised of a waterproof membrane followed by a root barrier, a drainage layer, and finally the growing medium and a variety of plants, grasses, sedums, cactus or shrubs - hence, the green. The technology, of course, isn't entirely new. For millennia, the natives of Scandinavia and Iceland, particularly barren environments with limited building materials, used sod on their roofs as insulation; in Tanzania, mud huts with grass roofs are common; and closer to home, many early settlers used sod to insulate their walls and prairie grass to cover their roofs.
Most likely it's too late to require this of Wal-Mart, but why not put it in our regulations now? Apparently these roofs are used extensively in Germany. They prevent run-off, which was the primary threat posed by the Wal-Mart proposal. They reduce the urban heat island effect, which might not meant much in Groton, but it can't hurt. They also help in the fight against Global Warming, both by taking carbon dioxide out of the air and reducing energy use.
Finally, they must look good; or at least better than what we have now.
From the U.S. Food and Drug Administration building in Washington DC to Heinz Corporate head quarters in Pittsburgh, an increasing number of buildings are swapping shingles for sedums. The movement is called green roofing, but far from an industrial paint job, it evolves around technology that's ecologically-sound - and proving so useful that cities like Portland, Oregon, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, and the entire state of Maryland are eagerly exploiting the potential of this once forgotten façade.
"This technology offers us an opportunity to significantly improve not only the way our buildings operate, but to utilize wasted spaces - there are millions of square miles," says Steven Peck, founder and president of Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, an organization established to increase awareness of green roof benefits. GRHC also hopes to advance the market in North America. "The roofing industry is just at the beginning of a process of transformation. Nothing can match the range of social, economic and environmental benefits green roofs provide."
As the name implies, green roofs are roofs made of plants. They're comprised of a waterproof membrane followed by a root barrier, a drainage layer, and finally the growing medium and a variety of plants, grasses, sedums, cactus or shrubs - hence, the green. The technology, of course, isn't entirely new. For millennia, the natives of Scandinavia and Iceland, particularly barren environments with limited building materials, used sod on their roofs as insulation; in Tanzania, mud huts with grass roofs are common; and closer to home, many early settlers used sod to insulate their walls and prairie grass to cover their roofs.
Most likely it's too late to require this of Wal-Mart, but why not put it in our regulations now? Apparently these roofs are used extensively in Germany. They prevent run-off, which was the primary threat posed by the Wal-Mart proposal. They reduce the urban heat island effect, which might not meant much in Groton, but it can't hurt. They also help in the fight against Global Warming, both by taking carbon dioxide out of the air and reducing energy use.
Finally, they must look good; or at least better than what we have now.
Tuesday - February 27, 2007
Sign Al's petition
I received a mass email from Al Gore today (As
you will see, we're on first name terms). I reprint some of it below, in the
hopes that some of my readers will add their names to Al's global warming
petition:
Dear John,
When the producers of An Inconvenient Truth first approached me with the concept for the film, I was skeptical. Could we really take a slideshow about the climate crisis and turn it into a compelling movie? Davis Guggenheim’s Oscar win for best documentary and a second one for Melissa Etheridge’s beautiful song “I Need to Wake Up” was a testament to their ability, but it was also a testament to you.
[Blahbity blahbity blah]
This is an incredible opportunity to demonstrate to Congress that we demand immediate action. And I need your help to really make this moment count. Can you commit to getting 10 friends to send their message to Congress through AlGore.com before March 21st? The more voices I can bring to Washington, the more powerful our message will be.
To get your friends involved, just forward them this note or direct them to:
http://algore.com/cards.html
[More blahbity]
Thank you,
Al Gore
Okay, maybe he's just trying to build an email list, but even if he is, get your name on it. He should be the next president. He should be president now for God's sake. On the other hand, the impersonal forces of chance work in strange ways. Maybe he was spared the presidency in 2000 because said forces had a better use for him. After all, how could blind chance have foreseen the Bush disaster? On the other hand, if God chose Bush over Gore, we have to ask ourselves quite seriously whether there's any hope, since God clearly has it in for us. Sorry, I digress. Just click the link.
Dear John,
When the producers of An Inconvenient Truth first approached me with the concept for the film, I was skeptical. Could we really take a slideshow about the climate crisis and turn it into a compelling movie? Davis Guggenheim’s Oscar win for best documentary and a second one for Melissa Etheridge’s beautiful song “I Need to Wake Up” was a testament to their ability, but it was also a testament to you.
[Blahbity blahbity blah]
This is an incredible opportunity to demonstrate to Congress that we demand immediate action. And I need your help to really make this moment count. Can you commit to getting 10 friends to send their message to Congress through AlGore.com before March 21st? The more voices I can bring to Washington, the more powerful our message will be.
To get your friends involved, just forward them this note or direct them to:
http://algore.com/cards.html
[More blahbity]
Thank you,
Al Gore
Okay, maybe he's just trying to build an email list, but even if he is, get your name on it. He should be the next president. He should be president now for God's sake. On the other hand, the impersonal forces of chance work in strange ways. Maybe he was spared the presidency in 2000 because said forces had a better use for him. After all, how could blind chance have foreseen the Bush disaster? On the other hand, if God chose Bush over Gore, we have to ask ourselves quite seriously whether there's any hope, since God clearly has it in for us. Sorry, I digress. Just click the link.
Saturday - January 27, 2007
This is not a joke
The Guardian reports:
US
answer to global warming: smoke and giant space
mirrors
The US government wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming, the Guardian has learned. It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a major UN report on climate change, the first part of which will be published on Friday.
The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions - as sought by Tony Blair. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing treaty which the US administration opposes.
No one can accuse me of underestimating the incompetence or iniquity of the Bush Administration, but I swear by the power of the laws of unguided chance that drew us from the muck to our exalted position at the pinnacle of life that when I saw this article on my RSS feeder I was sure it would be the product of a satirist. But it is not. I am in awe of how truly crazy these people are. If you doubt the article's veracity, you can read the U.S. proposals here. It really makes you want to cry.
The US government wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming, the Guardian has learned. It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a major UN report on climate change, the first part of which will be published on Friday.
The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions - as sought by Tony Blair. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing treaty which the US administration opposes.
No one can accuse me of underestimating the incompetence or iniquity of the Bush Administration, but I swear by the power of the laws of unguided chance that drew us from the muck to our exalted position at the pinnacle of life that when I saw this article on my RSS feeder I was sure it would be the product of a satirist. But it is not. I am in awe of how truly crazy these people are. If you doubt the article's veracity, you can read the U.S. proposals here. It really makes you want to cry.
Tuesday - January 02, 2007
You can't fool Mother Nature
A timely article (Mad
Cow-Free Cows?) in the Day, at least for me about mad cow disease.
Among the books Santa brought me was
The Family that Couldn't
Sleep, by D.T. Max, which relates the story so
far of scientific investigation of the prion, the name given to proteins
responsible for mad cow and other neurological diseases. (Just coincidentally my
son's name pops up in the
acknowledgments)
According to the article, scientists believe they have bred a genetically altered, mad cow resistant cow.
According to the article, scientists believe they have bred a genetically altered, mad cow resistant cow.
Sunday - December 03, 2006
The last rose of Autumn
This picture was taken in our backyard, this day,
December 3, 2006. I understand there may be snow tomorrow, so the roses will
presumably be gone. Is this a record, I wonder, for this
area.
.
.
Wednesday - June 28, 2006
The Oceans are getting acidic, as well as getting warm
I'm still reeling from watching Al Gore's move,
and today I see this
:
The oceans are inexorably becoming corrosive. Unknown to the greater public, this process due to the increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will have considerable impact. And well before the end of the century. In barely twenty years, the acidification of vast oceanic regions of the Southern Hemisphere will provoke the disappearance of certain planktonic organisms. This phenomenon is all the more worrying in that the affected flora and fauna constitute the first links in the marine food chain.
The oceans are inexorably becoming corrosive. Unknown to the greater public, this process due to the increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will have considerable impact. And well before the end of the century. In barely twenty years, the acidification of vast oceanic regions of the Southern Hemisphere will provoke the disappearance of certain planktonic organisms. This phenomenon is all the more worrying in that the affected flora and fauna constitute the first links in the marine food chain.
Monday - June 19, 2006
Told you so
My main problem with the Kelo case is that I
always believed that it was a loss leader for the right wing legal foundations.
They could paint it as the little guy versus the big bad government. The main
event was always in the field of land use regulations, where they use the same
arguments they use in the eminent domain cases. The gutting began today.
Sunday - March 05, 2006
This needs more study
The BBC reports on the effect global warming is having
on glaciers.