A Natural Aid for Our GHG Woes

Researchers at Ohio University have developed a unique and effective method for trapping harmful CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.

CO2 "nets'' are developed by producing large amounts of algae and stacking them vertically. This algae is remarkably effective at trapping CO2 and releasing pure oxygen and nitrogen in it's place. This algae can then be broken down and sold as biodiesel, increasing it's financial feasibility.

The main downfall of this method is that it takes enormous amounts of this algae to make a reasonable impact on CO2 emissions (it would take a net the size of wal-mart to make an impact on emissions from a power plant.)

Maybe this isn't a final solution for the GHG crisis, but it takes radical thinking to achieve radical results!

More information can be found here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0407-possible_fix_for_global_warming.htm

Killing 2 Birds With 1 Stone: Saving the Economy and Saving the World

While the green battle continues in America, it's important to note that important figures from all over the world are joining the fight.

One of the biggest overseas advocates, Lord Nicholas Stern (a renowned economist and avid environmentalist) has made it no secret that he believes the key to rebuilding the global economy is starting with a sustainable foundation.

Stern remarks that "With billions about to be spent by governments on energy, buildings and transport, it is vital that these public investments do not lock us for many more decades into a costly and unsustainable high-carbon economy... The rich industrialised countries need to show leadership this year by committing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared with 1990, and their economic recovery plans need to be consistent with this target."

A significant step to reversing global warming will be to set up a system of measurable (and attainable) goals for emission reduction over the course of the next few decades. 80% by 2050 will be very attainable if we start correcting our course now.

Another voice in the fight against climate change, Lord Chris Smith, noted that "2009 could, I believe, be the year when we radically change some of our economic and social habits, and make a historic shift towards a more sustainable pattern of human activity."

Let's hope that he's right.

Samsung Steps Up Environmental Efforts

In a story first released by Korean Newswire, Samsung Electronics announced they plan to reduce GHG emissions in their manufacturing facilities by 50%, and reduce indirect greenhouse gas emissions of all products by 84 million tons over the next five years. Samsung has labeled this bold new plan as “Eco-Management 2013.”
Samsung has always been on the leading end of technology, and this initiative will undoubtedly bolster their already outstanding image. In addition, I expect other tech companies such as LG and Panasonic to now follow suit and launch their own green initiatives in the near future.
I applaud Samsung for stepping up to the plate and releasing a set of measurable goals that will drastically reduce their environmental impact over the next several years, and hope companies in all industries will follow their lead.

The full story can be found here: http://newswire.ytn.co.kr/newsRead.php?md=A01&tm=1&no=418097

Green Businesses Make Happy CEOs

You can hardly open your laptop now-days without coming across a story urging individuals and businesses to go green. More often than not, emphasis is put on the environmental benefits of reducing consumption and waste accumulation. However, in the business world, money is still the most beloved shade of green. In order to convince businesses to become more environmentally friendly, it is important to show how these practices can improve the bottom line and save significant amounts of money. One of the best ways to save your company money no matter what the size is to work with local energy companies to reduce consumption and cost. Many companies have reported savings of up to 60% making simple changes like replacing regular light bulbs with CFLs and using power strips to restrict energy consumption on objects such as TVs and PCs that consume energy even when they are off.

Here are some quick ways to reduce business energy costs:
- Almost every state has a program directed toward providing free energy audits for local businesses. A simple phone call is all it takes to set up an appointment for a free energy audit. Auditors provide a wealth of information and may be the single biggest key in reducing a company's energy costs.

- If an energy auditor isn't available in your area (which is becoming exceedingly rare) do-it-yourself energy-audit tools may be right for you. Here are a few websites to help you determine your company's energy excesses and potential savings on your own.

www.pge.com/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/analyzer/

www.smud.org/business/saving-energy/online-energy-audit.html

Nuclear Power: Energy for the future?

I've been researching the potential pros and cons of nuclear energy lately, and to be honest I'm still stuck somewhere in the middle. Though the allure of this powerful technology has admittedly drawn me in a bit.

A few noteworthy points:
- Nuclear power plants emit extremely low levels of CO2. Utilizing this form of energy would be an excellent way to lower greenhouse gas emissions and in turn reduce the rate of global warming. This in and of itself makes it a very attractive option as a form of alternative energy.

- Each plant is capable of producing a very large amount of energy. This is a claim that solar and wind power sources cannot make. Nuclear plants would require much less time and space to develop giving us the ability to rapidly produce and utilize such energy.

- Nuclear energy waste is extremely dangerous and we still have not determined the appropriate way to dispose of it. A large scale change to nuclear energy may lead to a whole new set of problems long term as waste begins to pile up.

- Uranium stores (the energy source used for nuclear power plants) are expected to deplete within the next 30 to 60 years depending on demand. Meaning that this is certainly a short term solution to our current problems, not a long term one.

Many are convinced that nuclear power is the future of alternative energy, while others believe it is too risky and shortsighted a solution. However, I believe like most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle. While a large-scale nuclear energy program may prove to be both dangerous and narrow minded (especially as uranium sources deplete and the power plants become entirely useless), I believe in moderation it is an excellent option for helping us transition from our heavy reliance of foreign oil into the realm of abundant alternative energies.

The Evolution of Science in Politics and Policy

I read an article recently that really peaked my interest. Posted by Legal Planet, the article outlined the past, present, and future potential of using political avenues to expedite the understanding and acceptance of proven scientific facts.

A quick statistic from the article:
"87% of the scientists believe in evolution and 84% believe that the earth is warming because of human activity while 32% of the public respondents believe in evolution and 49% believe in anthropogenic global warming."

Statistics like this remind those of us in the scientific community (or at least those of us living in the internet age that are brave enough to venture outside the friendly confines of youtube and facebook) that while there are many things we find to be inarguable truths, society may find to be fallacy.

The first question which comes to mind is "Why exactly is there such a wide gap between the beliefs of the scientific community versus that of the general public?" With little deliberation I think the obvious conclusion is that much of the general public simply hasn't done their homework, which leads us full circle back to "Why?" Especially considering that we now live in the age of information. Simply typing the word "Sustainability" into google provides you with over 28 million pages. Almost limitless information at your fingertips. There are a couple of ways to answer this question, and while I doubt either answer is entirely correct, I believe that it is in fact some mixture of the two.

First, I believe the general public has a pass the buck attitude when it comes to embracing real change in the environment. While enough information has been provided to the general public that roughly half of the population confirms that they believe climate change is caused by human behaviors, very few truly wish to make any sort of effort in order to slow or reverse this progression. To take it a step further, the Waxman-Markey bill has shown that much of the US population is outraged when told that righting the climate ship will hit their wallets. The general argument is that with the economy being down it is a bad time to ask for more money from US citizens. My response would be that there will always be a reason to wait until tomorrow to correct our habits and repair the damage we've done. Furthermore, what better time to change the mindset and habits of the American people than during a recession? As has been stated by many economists, the time of excess is over. There is no better time than now to embrace living within your means, appreciating what you have instead of longing for what you don't, and making sure your money goes a long way when you spend. Is that not in many ways the definition of sustainability? If we take a wait and see approach to the climate epidemic, our children and their children will be handed a world that may very well be beyond repair.


The other cause of complacency in the general public regarding climate change is the circulation of misinformation. The most common argument I've heard is that climate change is cyclical and that we are simply peaking right now. Within a few years global temperature will return to normal levels and pollution has little (if any) effect on climate. I recently came across a graph that effectively sums up this argument:



There are two obvious conclusions to draw from this graph:
1. Temperatures do in fact fluctuate over time.
2. Net temperature has been clearly increasing since around the 1970s.
(For the record that graph was taken from nasa.gov which I consider to be fairly legit.)

For the sake of time and space I won't delve too far into the misinformation circulating, but I think the above example pretty well sums it up.

The next part of the article discussed what is potentially the biggest way the scientific community can reach out and influence the public, and that is becoming more involved in the world of politics.

The trouble with politics is that in spite of all of it's potential, it often devolves into a mudslinging contest filled with half truths and personal attacks. There were a few interesting methods outlined in order to get the word out and improve public perception regarding climate issues.
1. Normalize peer reviewing of environmental reports. While most scientific evidence is well founded and heavily researched, facts can be accused of being fiction when there aren't concrete standards for peer review.

2. Spend more time connecting climate science to public concerns. While there is an almost absurd amount of information out there, we still haven't done enough to outline how climate change really hits them at home.

3. This one is probably the biggest issue but also the most difficult to overcome. The general public needs to become better educated. Not just in regards climate related issues, but the general principles and processes of science itself. This all begins in the public school system, where science has notoriously been overlooked or outright ignored.

It's a long and arduous road ahead, but in spite of all of this, I'm incredibly proud of the steps this country has taken. I'm optimistic that ultimately reason will win out over fear and greed and the world will be a much greener place when we pass it on to the next generation.

The story can be found here: http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/science-the-public-and-policy/

Carbon Emissions Pose Major Threat to Coral Reefs

Hazardous CO2 emissions pose a serious threat to the world's coral reefs, threatening to cause major reef decline by the year 2050 according to researchers who gathered in London in Monday.

Current emission trends will lead to atmospheric carbon levels reaching 450 parts per million by the year 2050, causing destructive acidification of the world's oceans and making it uninhabitable for coral reefs leading to their eventual annihilation.

Destruction of this coral would lead to unavoidable shifts in underwater ecosystems and many different plants and animals would inevitably become extinct. These shifts would pose a major risk to the survival and well-being of humanity.

Currently, the goal is to keep CO2 levels at 360 PPM or lower, as researchers have highlighted such levels as the breaking point for coral reef health.

Hydrofluorocarbons, ozone's friend or enemy?

Hydrofluorocarbons, considered widely to be a useful means for protecting the ozone layer, have recently come under fire as another potential source of global warming in the future according to research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Though HFCs have proven to be a useful method for reducing ozone damage, they have a negative impact when it comes to global warming based on projections through the year 2050.

"HFCs are good for protecting the ozone layer, but they are not climate friendly," said David W. Fahey, a scientist at NOAA.

HFCs are usually overlooked as a cause of climate change because they pale in comparison to the earth torching substance that is CO2. However, in the long term this substance could account for as much as 10-12% of worldwide global warming.

HFCs are a common refrigerant used in many cooling devices, and as the demand for these products continues to increase in foreign countries, their impact will become more and more prevalent.

Research is already under way to determine methods to mitigate HFC use, and with proper planning and legislation, it is expected that HFC related climate change will peak by the year 2040, and actually significantly decline by 2050.

The full story can be found here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090622171503.htm