Is your Mac a friend or foe of the environment?

Would you have bought your precious iBook if you knew Apple was one of the worst performers when it came to addressing and reversing climate change?

According to Climate Counts, a climate conscious consumer organization, when it comes to action on climate change, Apple ranks the lowest among 12 leading producers of electronics. IBM and Toshiba actually take the top spots.

Climate Counts is a collaborative effort to bring consumers and companies together in the fight against global climate change. Each year, Climate Counts “scores” companies based on their measured climate footprint, their impact on global warming, their support (or lack) for progressive climate legislation, and their publicly disclosed actions.

Spend a little time on their website and you’ll be surprised (as I was) by the companies that are truly making strides against climate change. For instance – Nike has one of the highest scores of the almost 100 companies scored by Climate Counts.

Ideally, people would use a company’s score to influence where they spend their consumer dollars. As an environmentally conscious consumer, my McDonald’s hamburger tastes a little better because I know McDonald’s is striving higher than Wendy’s when it comes to climate change.

I am happy to report (as are other Mac users) that Apple's score increased from a 2/100 to a 11/100 from 2007 to 2008. While, a score of 11 still pales in comparison to IBM's 77, a quick visit to Apple's website verifies Apple should see a significant increase in their score in 2009. In the past year, Apple has taken significant strides to improve their climate consciousness.

Power to make significant progress in the climate battle exists in our wallets, purses, and piggy banks. If we seek to support companies who support the environment, we can raise awareness, change behavior and move markets to promote sound solutions to the climate crisis.

Why a ‘fart tax’ might be just a load of hot air

In recent months rumors have been circulating that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a ‘fart tax’ for livestock as part of their new plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions. A similar proposal has outraged farmers in both New Zealand and Australia.

Why do we care about such obscure taxes becoming a reality? Is it possible that these 'fart taxes' are just a load of hot air? (See this blog for more)

Many years ago, I was up late watching the news and saw a story about a herd of sheep fitted with contraptions consisting of plastic trousers on their behinds and tubes in their mouths, among other things. It was a hilarious sight and I couldn’t help but wonder why these sheep were hooked up to these pieces of equipment. Not being a complete novice to the science surrounding climate change, the explanation was in fact quite plausible. They were using these devices to measure their methane emissions.

According to this article from the BBC, farting and burping by these farm animals are responsible for:

• 90% of the methane emissions in New Zealand,
• 70% of the methane emissions in Australia, and
• 15% of methane emissions worldwide.

So, you might be wondering why the sudden shift to talking about methane?

• Methane has 21 times the heat-trapping potential of carbon dioxide (EPA).

Why is this important?

In agrarian countries like New Zealand, it is estimated that over half the country’s greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the methane emitted by farm animals. This means that something like a ‘fart tax’ on farm animals could, in theory, help NZ meet their Kyoto Protocol targets. But, this is just in theory…

In reality, a ‘fart tax’ would do very little to curb emissions. The actual result of such a tax would be a huge loss in revenue for farmers while the overall emissions in the atmosphere would not be reduced unless farmers cut back on the numbers of sheep, cows, and hogs. Ultimately, we would just see dairy and meat prices rise to meet growing costs. In the current economic climate, adding financial pressure to farmers, especially in NZ whose economy depends on agriculture, does not seem to be the answer to curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Luckily, the proposal was shot down in Australia, NZ, and the United States --- but not before widespread hysteria erupted among farmers.

Why do we regulate emissions using taxes and permits? To reduce emissions.

That being said, a ‘fart tax’ is not going to get the job done. The gas produced by these animals is a result of natural processes and is not going to be reduced by taxing farmers.

What is the solution then?

Methane gas emissions still need to be regulated and some scientists in Australia are now turning away from the old “plastic trousers” mechanism and are hooking sheep up to gas masks to measure their methane emissions from belching. It is supposedly much more effective and less cumbersome than previous methods --- though I can’t say that it would look any less ridiculous!

Other efforts to reduce methane emissions from farm animals include research on less “gassy” feed– a way to reduce emissions without reducing animal numbers. Or, maybe it is our own diets that need to change; kangaroo anyone?

Earth, Wind, and Fire: Creating True Multi-Use Landscapes

Despite recent winter congestion in my head, ideas about wind have been passing through on a regular basis. A proven technology with potential for exponential growth, wind power is an unobtrusive, clean energy source. And possibly a way to get more than just reductions in CO2 emissions.

Opponents of wind power have argued that it kills birds (true but unsubstantial, here, here, and here), degrades landscapes (a matter of opinion), or results in health problems like wind turbine syndrome (a possible reason for creating federal residential setback standards?). However, it seems increasingly clear that the benefits of wind power far outweigh its negatives. These many benefits and wind power’s increasing competitiveness with other forms of energy have led me to believe that on top of leading the charge of green energy, wind power will sustain it.

My mind conjures up images of a flat barren ground, wind whistling through the air, with turbine upon turbine stretching out over the horizon, supplying millions of kilowatts of clean energy. But recently I've realized that the barren ground in my vision could hold as much potential as the slow slinging blades above.

To get enough energy with wind power to meet growing demand will require the installation of large scale wind farms that cover vast areas. Many people have championed the idea that these wind farms be located in marginal areas, thus avoiding damage to sensitive ecosystems. That is smart planning, but can’t we do more? Even marginal lands can be used for more than just turbine installation sites.

A couple of potential land-use combinations spring to mind:

1) Biofuels and Wind - Much has been made about the potential to grow switchgrass, a source of cellulosic ethanol, on marginal lands. Why not combine wind and switchgrass production and get a two for one energy source?

2) Grazing and Wind - Picture vast herds of livestock under vast rows of wind turbines. Need I say more?

3) Prairies and Wind - Many conservationists have decried the loss of what were once two of the largest ecosystems in North America, native tall and short grass prairies. At first a marriage between wind farms and prairie restoration may seem like a stretch, but I think that with proper planning it holds a lot of potential.

4) Prairies, Bison, and Wind - Think idea number 2, but this time with herds of bison roaming through long stretches of restored native prairie. Food, biodiversity, and energy, all in one place.

So the next you think about wind energy, try to think beyond just the turbine.

What's on your dinner plate?

Which is worse for global warming-the fork or the SUV? To many the answer seems obvious—we all know how fuel efficient those Dodge Durango and GMC Yukons are.

But the answer is actually the fork, at least when that fork is being used to eat a big slab of meat. Our meat-heavy western diet is heating up our climate in a big way. A 2006 United Nations report that received little media attention, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” examined how the industry impacted land use, water pollution, air pollution, and biodiversity loss.

It concluded that worldwide livestock farming accounts for 18% of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 13% from all the planet’s cars, trains, planes and boats combined. The majority of emissions come from deforestation, since the constantly increasing demand for meat means clearing land to create pastures or farmland for growing animal feed.

In addition, every day factory farmed animals produce 130 times as much excrement as the entire human population of the U.S.—87,000 lbs. of waste per second! Much of this ends up in giant pits in the ground or on crops, which eventually pollutes the air and groundwater.

So now we know what comes out of this industry, but what goes in? According to an E Magazine article “The Case Against Meat,” 4.8 pounds of grain is needed to produce 1 pound of beef. With so many starving people in the world, is it ethical to feed our growing desire for meat instead of feeding people? The article’s author says that the next time you sit down for an 8 oz. steak, think about “the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of you.” Overly dramatic? Maybe. But perhaps we need some dramatic imagery these days.

Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that if the U.S. reduced its meat production by just 10%, it would free up enough grain to feed 60 million people. And what do meat producing companies respond to? Customer demand.

So my question is why more environmental organizations aren’t advocating vegetarianism or even reduced meat consumption as an environmental solution to everything from local water pollution to global warming. Hopefully this will change soon. Even the head of the U.N.’s Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, recently urged the world to cut back on meat in order to combat climate change.

I encourage you to start thinking more about what you’re eating and where it comes from. Even if you don’t give up meat completely, you can start by cutting out one or two meat meals a week. And next time you get a mailing or email from a major environmental organization, by all means support them, but also send them a note asking them why they’re missing out on such a huge opportunity to make a difference.

The Future of Oz: Wildfires, heat waves, and climate change

During the 18 years I spent growing up in Perth, Western Australia, I never experienced Christmas with a “real” Christmas tree. We used a plastic tree (as did many other families) for fear that our house would catch on fire in the intense summer heat.

That fear has become a reality for many in recent months after Australia’s latest wildfires – the worst in the nation’s history - killed over 180 people. Almost 500,000 acres and over 700 homes were destroyed by the fires that spread throughout Victoria, a state in south-eastern Australia.

Just a week ago I was reading about the worst heat wave on record in this very same state. Temperatures soared up to 115 degrees Fahrenheit – the hottest on record. Unprecedented droughts in the region combined with extreme heat created the perfect fuel for this blistering inferno. Experts are saying that this is only the beginning of the effects of climate change that Australia will face in coming years.

Fires have been a part of the Australian landscape for millions of years. The natural ecosystems have evolved; the plants have adapted. But, add people to this vast and relatively empty continent and fire becomes a terrifying prospect.

All it takes is a single spark from a cigarette or a lightning strike, and the grasses will light up, the dried bush will catch on fire, and then the wind comes…. Before too long, you have a glowing river of flames expanding across the landscape. You would have to search very hard to find an Australian who is not afraid of wildfires. We all know someone who has been affected.

These recent fires are the worst in Australia’s history since the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983 and the Black Friday fires of 1939 that devastated south-east Australia. This region is considered to be one of the most fire-prone areas in the world, along with southern California. Both regions are predicted to be at greater risk of wildfires as a result of climate change.

According to a World Bank Report (see here), Australia increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 38% between 1994 and 2004 making it the sixth highest per capita emitter in the world -- mostly as a result of their dependence on coal-fired power. So, what is Australia's response to climate change? Their current target is only a pitiful 5% reduction by 2020. This is not enough if we want to avoid a repeat of these fires (see this link for recommended actions).

Luckily this most recent fire did not reach the state’s most populated areas, but what about next time? My own hope is that we can find better solutions to wildfire management in Australia before we need to resort to living in fire proof homes below the scorched surface.

If you want to encourage Australian politicians to take action on climate change, check out TheBigSwitch.org.au. This organization is working to encourage Australians to talk to their local politicians to take action.

Some Carbon Credits Are Just All Wet

Massive hydroelectric dam projects in China and other countries are being marketed as viable carbon credits -- but under some very faulty logic, according to an AP report released today. Let's see why.

At the heart of the problem are the credits allowed under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a Kyoto-approved carbon market system. Carbon markets, you might remember, assume that we're all living under a giant bubble: if one country reduces its emissions, they're making a net subtraction for everyone in the bubble. This country now gets to market its subtractions as credits to other nations that don't want to bother with reductions. Under CDM, industrialized countries can buy carbon-reduction credits from developing countries (explained nicely here). What's the problem, then?

AP rightly points out the problem of "additionality" - if you're going to build a dam anyway to generate more power, you're not making a dent in the existing carbon levels of our little globe. Now, fix an existing nasty coal plant and lower its emissions, or replace a coal plant with a cleaner energy supply -- that will. And we haven't even mentioned the ecological and cultural damages that rampant dam projects can cause.

But it's a tough call. We like carbon credits because they allow polluting companies/nations to make some difference, and sooner. We like hydro projects because they are a form of clean energy. But not all credits are alike, and many dams are built with insufficient ecological considerations. The UN says it will be improving the CDM program, so stay tuned. Meanwhile, if your company or government is buying carbon credits or portfolios, do the due diligence.


(For a satirical take on the controversy over carbon markets, check out the classic CheatNeutral. Hey, as long as there is less adultery in the world overall, I can just pay someone else to not cheat, right?)

***NOTE Jan 27, 2009: I'm sitting in a lecture by Bryan Murray of the Nicholas Institute, and someone in class just mentioned that CDM is also rather unaffectionately called "rip-offsets"...