Green Daily

In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that mankind is heating up the planet, only 47% of Americans think it's actually happening, and among Republicans the number is only 27%, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center. What's more remarkable is that the percentage who believe is actually down from a year and a half ago.

Overall, 71% of Americans think the planet is heating but a slim majority don't think it has anything to do with us. Republicans are far less likely to believe in human-caused global warming than Democrats (27% vs 58%), and older people and those living in rural areas are more prone to denial than their younger, urban counterparts.

The survey also found that only 49% of Republicans surveyed think the earth is getting warmer at all, astonishing in light of the measurable facts that 11 of the hottest years on record have been in the the last 13, and 2007 was the 2nd warmest year ever. As recently as January of 2007, 62% of Republicans were at least able to recognize that was the climate was changing, even if they disagreed with the scientific consensus on the reason behind it.

So what's going on here? How is it that in spite of the fact that man-made climate change has been confirmed or endorsed by every major scientific organization in the world from NASA to the Royal Meteorological Society to the Federation of American Scientists, more people have decided that it simply isn't happening?

Mother Jones has a troubling piece about the plans that conservative groups are hatching to face down an endangered species designation for the polar bear - a designation which has been in the works for some years now.

It works like this: Business groups argue that since polar bears are affected by climate change, a successful designation could leave any number of carbon polluters liable to enforcement under the act's provisions - an outcome which environmental groups see as highly desirable. Carefully chosen plaintiffs, supported by the business side, will claim that an endangered designation for the white bears would bring up energy prices, which are disproportionately borne by poor people ($4/gallon gas hurts a lot more when you're making minimum wage).

Never mind that the planned lawsuits would be financed by groups that are more interested in their own profits than in the poor people in question (since when did Exxon/Mobil give a darn about the underprivileged?) There's also the fact that the disruption caused by long-term climate change will, of course, disproportionately affect poor people (as these protesting polar bears from Oxfam remind us), but you don't see the American Petroleum Institute standing up for them on that front...

Windmills aren't just for jazzing up the mini-putt anymore. A new report from the Department of Energy says that the wind could rock 300 gigawatts of electricity into the grid by 2030, providing 20% of America's electrical needs. The key word here is "could" , since it'll require an approximate 20 fold increase in the amount of wind power being produced, meaning the number of turbines being installed will have to increase from 2000 in 2006 to 7000 in 2017.

However, change is in the, uh, wind. Tycoon T. Boone Pickens is planning to drop $10 billion for a 4 GW wind farm in Texas, and 2008 is set to be a record-breaking year for the number of wind GW being generated in the US. Overall, wind power production reached almost 17 GW last year, of which 5 GW was installed in 2007 alone. And with oil prices hitting new highs weekly, investors are starting to like the look of wind farms on the horizon.

Apart from the obvious benefits of weaning America off of fossil fuels, which still generate about 70% of US electricity (mostly from coal and natural gas) the impact on climate change mitigation efforts would be considerable. It's estimated that if 20% of electrical power were supplied by wind turbines, it could reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants by 25%.

Read the full report here.

via [Wired]

A new report from the Australian Farm Institute says that farm production in that country could double in the next 40 years. Mick Keogh, executive director of the Institute says that warming could actually increase rainfall and crop growth in parts of the country, and that with a little adaption, most farmers would be able to boost production.

The study disputes earlier research from Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) which warned that climate change would devastate Australian agriculture, reducing output by as much as 10% by 2030.

The conflicting reports demonstrate a couple of things - firstly, Australia's a damn big place, full of different weather and different opinions. Secondly, climate change is nothing if not unpredictable, which doens't make the idea much more appealing.

It's great to see celebrities getting greener, consumers getting eco-smarter and Al Gore pissing-off FOX news. With positive stories everywhere, it's easy to get a warm fuzzy feeling that the earth is going to be all right.

Then you see the science. Figures recently published on the web site of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show that carbon dioxide, everyone's favorite greenhouse gas, is building up faster than expected and is currently at a record high, renewing fears that global warming could slide out of control.

Here are the numbers: Currently, the planet has 387 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 floating around - that's the highest it has been in the last 650,000 years and up 40% since the industrial revolution. What's scarier is the increased rate of concentration. From 1970 to 2000 the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose annually by 1.5 ppm. More recently, the increase since 2000 has been 2.1 ppm, per year on average. Just last year, the mean concentration of carbon dioxide went up by 2.14 ppm. We're concentrating CO2 into the air now more than ever.

What do all of these numbers mean? While the earth can naturally soak up about half of our future carbon output every year, through forests and oceans, these newly reported figures may make policy people rethink current, overly optimistic, emission reduction plans.

Since consumers started embracing their inner treehugger (although generally not so much that we're willing to pay a green premium), savvy marketers have been hyping everything from SUVs to patio furniture as if they heralded the dawning of the age of eco-Aquarius. That, in turn, has led to a backlash, with civic-minded bloggers seeking out and slamming organizations perceived as exaggerating their enviro-credentials.

Exposing hypocrisy isn't a bad thing, and false advertising is out and out wrong, moreso when it makes a deceptive appeal to our sense of virtue. However, cynical society that we are, it's easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater by taking more interest in criticizing companies for what they don't do than recognizing them for taking steps in the right direction.

All our actions have an environmental impact, and the only truly benign human is six feet under, peacefully feeding the earthworms and fertilizing the hydrangea. Since we're generally agreed that mass suicide isn't the favoured solution to the current crisis, any steps we take to keep the planet healthy are in some degree going to be half-measures.

In other words, eco-friendly can only exist as a relative concept - no product or process is unequivocally green, but only greener than other products or processes intended to achieve the same goal.

The traditional method of communicating over long distances using paper, stamps and envelopes is in serious need of an overhaul. The two biggest reasons for this are paper waste and the amazingly high cost of postage that seems to change weekly. So what can you do?

There are many options, but email and the internet are probably your best bet. The problem with email in the minds of most people who didn't grow up with it, is the fact that it just doesn't seem as personal. One solution to this is scanning. You can find a scanner for next to nothing these days, and their capture quality is top-notch. You can then email photos, artwork, or anything else that would ordinarily fit in a small envelope.

Sometimes everyone wants to talk about the Yankees, and sometimes everyone wants to talk about gas prices. Personally, I'd rather not talk about either. But gas is on everyone's lips, from Hillary Clinton to Chris Matthews, the price of crude is just crude.

But gas prices are only one factor in how much consumers are spending for fuel. Congestion, vehicle size and distance also play major roles. According to Forbes cities like Houston have the cheapest gas, but drivers there are spending the most on gas.

You see, while drivers in Houston are paying a mere $3.44 a gallon for gas, they're also driving huge vehicles. According to a U.S. Department of Transportation study 20-percent of drivers in the south drive trucks and another 16-percent drive SUVs.

At a time when so many people are enthusiastic about the possibility of renewable energy, it's almost hard to believe that developers are pushing coal power plants in almost every state in the US. An astounding 150 coal-burning power plants have been planned since 2002, and it seems like there's some kind of a race going on to get these plants built before the green movement can shut them down. The Sierra Club has reportedly put a halt to 63 of the projects already, and Tuesday they set their sights on 8 more.

In February, a D.C. federal appeals court ruled that the EPA had violated the Clean Air Act, and should have required mandatory cuts on mercury emissions for all new power plants -- thus giving the Sierra Club more ammunition to attack the mercury and carbon-spewing power plants. The leaders of 8 coal projects across 5 states got letters this week from the Sierra Club, saying that their plans should be resubmitted to their state agencies to get approved under the newer emissions standards -- or else get sued. Nice.

The mile-high club just got dirtier. A report by leading aviation experts says that CO2 emissions from air travel are some 20% higher than previously thought, and could reach 1.5 billion tonnes a year by 2025. That's roughly equivalent to the CO2 emissions for the entire country of Russia, with about 141 million people. The percentage of global greenhouse gases produced by planes is also expected to rise from the current 2% to 5% or higher.

The increase comes in spite of cleaner jet engine technologies and flying tactics designed to reduce fuel use and pollution.

The report, entitled Trends in Global Noise and Emissions From Commercial Aviation, was presented at an FAA organized conference in Barcelona last year, but never published.

Also, the number of people seriously affected by aircraft noise will jump from from 24 million in 2000 to 30.3 million by 2025. Good thing we'll all be deaf from iPod use by then anyway.

via [The Independent]

Last year, the US Congress signed a bill preventing federal agencies from investing money into alternative fuel projects that produce more polluting effects than oil and gas. This was certainly a step in the right direction, but could it possibly be true that Congress is considering a repeal of that bill, in order to explore investments in Canada's tar sands and oil shale projects? Yes, it is true, but environmental groups across North America are fighting to do something about it by petitioning the government through their senators.

In case you're wondering what tar sand is, it's basically a heavy crude oil mixed with sand, clay and rock. The process of extracting and refining it into a usable crude for vehicle and industrial consumption is not only much more expensive to process, but its effect on our environment is much larger than convention oil well drilling. Tar sand extracting does currently occur in North America, and the US does currently invest in it, but with last year's Section 526 bill, we had hoped this practice would have slowed to a halt.

Have you ever heard stories from your parents or grandparents about how they'd take a dip in a local pond, or grab an inner tube and float down the river for hours without a care in the world? That's almost unheard of these days. Sure, you could still do it, but you had better make sure you've had all your shots.

To showcase the improving state of natural waterways in the UK, photographer and travel writer Daniel Start recently released a new photo-guide book entitled "Wild Swimming: 150 Hidden Dips in the Rivers, Lakes and Waterfalls of Britain". In this book he explores the freshest of the freshwater "wild swimming" spots across the country. In a time when we hear more and more about the contamination of our water, it's nice to hear some good news for once.

Global warming and peak oil might sound nasty to you, but for some folks working on green technologies it sounds like "Ka-ching." With growing concern about CO2 from fossil fuels that may or may not be running out anyway, venture capitalists pumped a record $2.2 billion into cleantech last year, says a report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers entitled "Cleantech Comes of Age."

Much of the boom is focused on alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, and biofuels with total investment in that area reaching $1.1 billion. However, pollution mitigation and recycling also attracted funding, with 29 recorded deals totalling over $202 million.

It'd be nice to think that the surge in interest in eco-friendly tech has to do with our collective consciences driving us to better stewardship of the planet, but we all know it's because oil is at $123 a barrel and rising, making alternative energy and straight-up conservation look a lot more attractive. But whatever the reason, it's all a step in the right direction.

via [Green Tech Blog]

According to the research of Sydney University's Ian Hume, rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can turn eucalyptus leaves -- the Koala's favorite food -- into a toxic salad of death. Apparently, the heightened level of carbon dioxide not only saps the nutrients from the leaves that Koalas need to survive, but it also increases production of toxic "anti-nutrients" in the eucalyptus plant. Bummer.

The Koala's eucalyptus diet is notoriously low in nutritional value as it is, and they've adapted to it by sleeping nearly 20 hours a day. Now with strange anti-nutrients blocking the digestion of the few proteins in the leaves, the Koala is faced with any even greater uphill battle. With the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere, Hume expects a steady decline in Koala population over the next 50 years due to a lack of edible eucalyptus leaves. This is obviously bad news for one of Australia's national symbols. At least the kangaroos are mating like rabbits.

IBM has some bragging rights in the climate-friendly front today after a recent report by ClimateCounts gave the computer manufacturer top honors. The company scored 77 out of 100 possible points on the ranked list, which beat out such electronics powerhouses as Canon, Toshiba, Sony and most notably, Apple. Even Microsoft, with a lower-than-average 38 points had more than three times that of Apple's meager 11 points.

So how much of an impact does this report actually have, and how were these companies ranked? Well, according to their scorecard, they scored companies based on their climate footprint, how effectively they've reduced their climate impact, whether they've supported or blocked progressive climate policy initiatives and if they've made their climate protection efforts public or not.

Check out the complete report and see what you think. You may be surprised.