Global Energy Use Myths: Food for Thought

Here's an interesting blog post on The Sustainable Scribe about energy use and carbon emissions from different countries. Seems we're pointing the finger at China and India, putting the blame on them for global warming emissions, when the U.S. and Australia are leading offenders per capita when it comes to carbon dioxide releases.

The post goes through a number of statistics and while it seems that the U.S. is the greater offender from a per capita standpoint, China still has the larger population which creates its own problems.

Even so, China is making the largest investment in clean energy of any nation in the world (or so says this post), a factor that should weigh in its favor.

Read the post. It'll give you plenty to chew on.

A Great Green Holiday Round-Up

Here for your holiday reading pleasure is a round-up of eco-related links pertinent to the season.

First, a post about eco-friendly ornaments (or working toward greener glassblowing).

Plus a couple of videos from Eco-Libris about how to celebrate a green Christmas and what to do with your Christmas cards afterward (other than just recycling them, of course).

Also, an interesting post from The Green Civil Engineer (isn't the name awesome?) about how Santa Claus runs a sustainable operation. Very cool!

In addition, here's a list of 15 ways you can make the new year more eco-friendly.

Finally, I'm throwing this in, just in case you wondered.

Happy holidays!

The Christmas Tree Debate: Real vs. Artificial - Part 2

As I previously wrote, real Christmas trees are probably the "greener" choice as compared with artificial trees. However, according to this New York Times article, consumers tend to perceive fake Christmas trees as being more eco-friendly.

According to one shopper, "I'm very environmentally conscious. I'll keep it for 10 years, and that's 10 trees that won't be cut down."

The problem with that logic, of course, is that Christmas trees are raised on farms and harvested intentionally. Not cutting them down is not the same as preserving old growth forest.

Besides the carbon emissions associated with using a real tree are about one-third of those caused by using an artificial tree, according to an "independent study" by a firm called Ellipsos.

The makers of fake trees have another perspective, of course. One manufacturer claims that buying an artificial tree and using it at least five years is absolutely green. Further, he says people who buy real trees use more energy and pollute more through car travel than they would by buying a fake tree from China.

Not so, according to the American Christmas Tree Association (you knew there had to be one, right?). They say it takes closer to 10 years of use for a fake tree to compare favorably with a real one from an environmental standpoint.

Finally, there's the matter of disposal. Fake trees end up in landfills. Real ones can be recycled and composted.

Perhaps we're no closer to knowing the real answer. However, here are some more alternatives to buying traditional Christmas trees of whatever type.

Dishes: Hand Washing or Machine Washing?

Okay, here's the problem. Washing dishes by hand actually wastes resources by using more water than dishwashers. However, dishwasher detergent without phosphates (the greener variety) doesn't clean well enough the first time to meet most people's standards of cleanliness. Ergo, they repeat the wash cycles until the dishes are clean. Using more water, in the process.

It's kind of a vicious circle set up by law essentially, because 17 states have banned phosphates in detergent. Good intentions that have gone awry, unfortunately.

While this article on the issue doesn't purport to have an answer, I think it at least acknowledges the problem.

So which would you choose? Dishpan hands or slightly dirty dishes?

Goodness! Look What the Feds Are Up To!

Today's headlines from Grist had two articles about federal agencies that were each kind of stunning in their own way.

First, this one about the first report the Food and Drug Administration has issued concerning the amount of antibiotic use in the livestock industry. Turns out to be a sh*tload (paraphrasing a public health reporter).

Even the 29 million pound amount reported for 2009 is considered low. One group has estimated it to be closer to 50 million pounds. Hoo boy! This would mean that factory animal farms use an amazing 60 percent of U.S. antibiotics. Such use of antibiotics is thought to be leading to outbreaks of disease.

Mind you, antibiotic use isn't strictly for therapeutic purposes. It's also used to enhance livestock growth and keep them from catching diseases due to close confinement.

But that's not all. According to this article, it turns out the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allowed a bee-toxic pesticide to be approved despite the warnings of its own scientists. Oops!

According to the article:

"An internal EPA memo released Wednesday [Dec. 8] confirms that the very agency charged with protecting the environment is ignoring the warnings of its own scientists about clothianidin, a pesticide from which Bayer racked up €183 million (about $262 million) in sales in 2009."

Check out both articles. Tom Philpott has really been working it--investigative journalism-wise.

The Christmas Tree Debate: Real vs. Artificial

With the coming of the Christmas holiday, it's well worth contemplating whether a natural or artificial Christmas tree is the more eco-friendly alternative.

Thus, I'd recommend reading this well written article on the subject. It examines both options in a fair amount of detail.

Among other things, the article notes that even though buying a reusable tree may seem to preserve trees (and appear more "green," in that sense), that's really not the only deciding factor. There are the matters of 1) what the tree is made of; 2) how it's creation affects the environment; and 3) how it ends up being disposed.

In fact, artificial trees are made with "polyvinyl chloride (or PVC), which is a petroleum-derived plastic. The raw material for fake Christmas trees is both non-renewable and polluting. Furthermore, PVC production results in the unhealthy emission of a number of carcinogens, such as dioxin, ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride."

Not only that, but in order to make the PVC needles more malleable, artificial tree makers use lead and other additives that have been linked to liver, kidney, neurological and reproductive system damage (at least in animal studies). In fact, a whole lot of artificial trees come from China (uh oh). In fact, if a tree is suspected to contain lead, parents are warned not to let their kids touch them. Or immediately have them wash their hands, if they do. Oh, and by the way, look out for the shower of lead-laced dust that may fall off it. My, how merry.

Okay, not so good. Even so, the real Christmas tree industry isn't entirely "green" either. Along with watering, there's chemical and pesticide use to consider. Plus trucking the trees into communities after the harvest. However, on the bright side, the distances tend to be short, because the trees need to be kept as fresh as possible. (China, on the other hand, is not exactly around the corner.)

Finally, on disposal, an artificial tree obviously isn't biodegradable. If you stick it in a landfill, it'll just sit there. If you burn it, it'll break down into dioxins and other carcinogens. Nasty!

On the other hand, real trees can be recycled. The branches can be converted to mulch, which decomposes and adds nutrients to the ground.

So it would appear this article comes down on the side of real trees.

And, if you have any lingering doubt, you can always opt for Norfolk pine houseplants and other options.

Renewable Energy and Variability

Renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, does have variability issues. No one's denying that. The question is what problems do they present? And what should we do about them?

As this article points out, one thing we shouldn't do is ignore them. The variability argument can too easily be spun to support politically-motivated opposition to alternative energy options.

The article goes into an impressive amount of detail about how those issues could be managed through evolving energy-producing infrastructure and better weather prediction, among other things.

In other words, none of these technologies are developed in a vacuum.

Besides, Seattle, WA, and Oslo, Norway, aren't the first places I would've picked as solar powerhouses, either.

Sustainable Palm Oil: A Test Case for 'Green' Consumerism

According to this article, palm oil has overtaken soya as the world's number one source of vegetable oil. Demand for palm oil has doubled in the last decade because of its health benefits (it has no trans fats) and the fruit of the palm produces more oil per hectare than rival products like soya and sunflower. However, there is a catch.

Palm oil trees are usually grown on former rainforest land. Recent demand has led to habitat destruction. And while bad PR on these ill effects have led to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, a coalition with the goal of launching a trademarked logo for food and cosmetic products containing sustainable palm oil, will it be enough to stop the destruction?

The article goes on to ask all sorts of interesting questions. For instance, questions raised in response to a statement by Unilever's president, who said the logo would show that the product "does not contribute to the sustained destruction of valuable tropical forests or damage the interests of people in the regions where the palms are grown."

Well, that's nice, but (as the article points out) what is "sustained destruction"? Is "unsustained destruction" okay? And who gets to determine "the interests of people in the regions" (whatever those interests might be)?

The bottom line, I think, is whether this is just another example of greenwashing. Is "sustainable palm oil" (as the headline suggests) just a "fig leaf," rather than a real solution.

The article provides plenty of food for thought. (No pun intended.)

As noted in conclusion:

"The stakes are immensely high. They are high for the rainforests of Southeast Asia and Africa, which could face wipeout unless the palm oil juggernaut is stopped. But they are also high for consumer environmentalism. If palm oil can be tamed, then so can other global commodities grown at great environmental expense — like cotton, soya, cocoa and the many food crops now being co-opted for biofuels. And if they can be tamed, then why not coal and oil?

"If globalization can make the consumer king, then maybe consumers can accomplish what politicians have failed to do."

Well, there's a hopeful thought.