Green Daily

In an attempt to answer the numerous questions about biofuels and whether they are a sane way to cut greenhouse emissions, the Seattle Post Intelligencer has put together a chart that can help us see for ourselves. Because, isn't it about time that we get to see the information with our own eyes? The chart was created using the data from various research universities around the US and the Nature Conservancy.

Sadly, the chart tells us what we already know to be true. Although corn-based ethanol is by far the least efficient of the biofuels being explored -- producing roughly the same levels of greenhouse gases as regular diesel -- it's really the only one with any availability in the US. Switch grass and algae-based fuels both seem promising, but they're still years away in terms of development. In the meantime, what we're really talking about is corn. From what we've seen so far with the speculation and hoarding that is going on, it looks as if using food crops for fuel is a very volatile proposition at best. So, is it worth it? Click on the chart to see a the full version.

[via Treehugger]

At the end of last year, Fiji announced it's plans to offset its carbon emissions by 120%, so that -- according to their website -- drinking Fiji will "result in a net reduction of carbon in the atmosphere." While that sounds great and all, I'm finding Fiji's claims a little hard to swallow. How about you?

The truth is that Fiji has done more than most bottled water companies to lessen its impact on the environment, but still: bottled water is bottled water. Despite their buying huge carbon offsets and shipping their water on container ships that are already destined for US ports -- bottled water is simply not as green as drinking from the tap. According to estimates from Triple Pundit, it takes almost 6 times more water to produce and transport a bottle of Fiji than the bottle actually holds. No matter how they offset it, that is not a very green equation.

I've got to hand it to them, they've come up with a pretty good marketing tool -- but seriously. If Exxon bought 120% offsets for it's operations, would we believe that filling up with Exxon results in a net reduction of greenhouse gases?

The water calculator is a great way to see, on average, how much water you use per year in comparison to the rest of the country.

A few caveats, though:

a) The "quick" calculator option is fairly limiting and could have a high margin of error. For instance, because I entered "female" and "vegetarian" (no vegan option) into the system, the calculator assumed that, because I don't eat meat, I eat a comparatively higher amount of dairy and "cereal" (I think they mean carbs in general), which isn't true. Best to go with the "extended" version.

b)The site only allows you to enter your food consumption in kilograms, so if you're like me and don't know offhand how many kilograms of fruit you eat per week, convert it to pounds.

Again, as a warning, I'm not sure how accurate this is - but I'm somehow confident that our readers will be sure to let us know! The site does have some interesting stats and studies, which are worth checking out.

Yale economist, Richard Repetto wants everyone to know the score when it comes to the effect carbon-reducing legislation would have on the US economy. That's why he and his staff have developed a very user-friendly website that allows you to see the long term growth of the US economy with CO2 reductions in place. The See For Yourself website allows users to input their opinions regarding the economy and climate change, allowing them to compare their predictions with the Yale's.

Facts and figures are nice, but I think tools like this one are long overdue for people who want to get a little more hands-on with their understanding of climate change. The good news is that the Yale team predicts robust economic growth even in the face of substantial carbon emissions legislation. So, it seems that we don't have to sacrifice the economy for the environment. Yesss.

[via Treehugger]

According to an article in Forbes, the record oil prices that we're seeing now are resulting in a lot of weird, counter-intuitive responses from drivers. For the most part, our driving habits have remained astonishingly unchanged in the face of $3.50 a gallon gas -- some of us are even driving more. According to David Littman, an economist from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy:

"There's no doubt that hybrid owners end up spending just as much on gasoline as before because the added efficiency allows them to rationalize driving more miles."

You already know that you're emitting carbon each time you use your 'puter. But how much carbon, exactly?

Sun Microsystems is hoping to figure that out. They just started an initiative that tracks e-mail for companies in hopes of compiling the official carbon footprint, and to prove that e-mail has a significant environmental advantage over other methods of communication.

Specifically, the IT company is tracking mail servers, software applications, and network devices to try to extrapolate the energy used for e-mailing.

If Sun Microsystems can make it possible for companies to compile an exact figure, orgs can then compare their carbon footprint to industry standards, and be able to more efficiently green their offices and encourage eco-friendly habits. At least, that's what they're hoping.


via [sustainablog]

If you're a global warming skeptic who blames the warming trend on a more active solar cycle, Judith Lean, a scientist from the Naval Research Laboratory has a message for you: you're less than 10% right. How's that for a diplomatic way to put it?

At a convention of petroleum geologists in San Antonio, a spokesperson for the national laboratory said that the sun's activity is having a measurable effect on rising temperatures -- but it's about a tenth of the effect of the human factor. Don't let that fool you into thinking that our understanding of climate change is getting any simpler.

Heads at Wal-Mart HQ are reporting a major jump in the sales of environmentally-friendly products over the last year. To track the adoption rate of green items, Wal-Mart created what it calls the 'Live Better Index,' a sample of 5 key environmentally-friendly products that they think reflects the mentality of consumers as a whole. After crunching the numbers since last year's Earth Day, the index shows a growth of 66% in the green habits of Wal-Mart shoppers. Yes, you read that right: Wal-Mart shoppers.

Are you often skeptical of "green" claims made in advertisements?

You're not alone. Burst Media conducted a survey that found that about 23% of consumers never believe green claims they see or hear in ads, while 65% say they only sometimes believe the claims. And about 40% of those surveyed actually investigate the claims further (way to be conscientious consumers!)

Interestingly, about 37% of those surveyed say they frequently recall the green messages they've heard or seen (let's hope that the ones they recall are also truthful and accurate).

And the ads seem to be working, at least in part: about 80% of responders say they've made at least slight adjustments in their daily lives to be more green.

What about you? Do you believe what you hear when it comes to green info?

The Olympic torch is having a really bad year. Aside from the sometimes violent human rights protests that greet the torch runners in each city this year, there's another growing concern that is casting a less than favorable light on the usually uncontroversial symbol of peace: its carbon footprint.

Wired News estimates that the Olympic torch -- with all of its globe-trotting -- is spewing and extra 11 million pound of CO2 into the atmosphere this year on its way to Greece.

A miracle of the trash variety occurred last week in Philadelphia. What was this miracle, you ask?

The Mayor instated an initiative. Thousands of people showed up and pitched in. And the results were palpable.

Specifically, the numbers were way beyond estimations. About 15,000 volunteers removed 2.56 million pounds of trash from 71 commercial centers, 28 recreation centers, and 27 areas of Fairmount Park. Oh - and they also got rid of 186 abandoned cars. Whew!

Maybe it was the nice weather, or the recent barrage of green messages in the media, or severe boredom that made people show up in hoards and take pride in their city. But whatever the reason, this initiative was much-needed and much appreciated.

Maybe these types of results from a one-day clean-up wouldn't be as shocking or thrilling in a city like Portland, Maine, or Montpelier, Vermont. But for a city like Philly, whose citizens typically rally together in their mutual frustration with their town, results like this are a big deal.

The coolest part? Some neighborhoods are actually still pretty trash-free. Including mine.

The Midwest might not be leading the charge when it comes to wind power, but they're putting up some good numbers all the same. This week, an energy company called Dominion Resources Inc. announced its plans to put up a 25,000 acre wind farm smack in the middle of the Land of Lincoln.

The 300 MW wind farm -- called Prairie Fork -- will house between 150-200 turbines and will be located about 25 miles south of Springfield. Does that put it close to Shelbyville? When Prairie Fork is completed in 2011, it will bring the Midwest's wind-power supply up to a respectable 3,200 MW -- or about enough to power 800,000 homes. To put it in context, Texas' capacity is at 16,818MW, but it also gets much more wind.

Dude, you're getting clean energy. Dell might be going through a rough patch -- with the dell dude waiting tables and the computer giant having to let go 10% of its workforce -- but that hasn't stopped them from keeping an eye on their environmental impact. Last week, Dell announced that its Austin headquarters will be making the switch to 100% green energy.

Dell's 2 million square foot headquarters will now run on a mixture of 60% wind power and 40% from local landfill gas. Dell didn't disclose how much they were paying, but local media estimates that it equals an increase of $400k per year. The advantage for Dell, aside from averting a potentially catastrophic climate change, is price certainty -- since their energy budget will be static for the year.

[via Earth2Tech]

The good news: paper recycling has hit an all-time high, and the U.S. is five years ahead of industry goals.

The bad news: In 2007, we only recycling 56% of the paper we consumed.

Officials from the American Forest and Paper Association want everyone to keep recycling so we can get to 60%.

So, how much is 56 percent? In this case, about 54.3 million tons of paper, or about one ton, per day, per person, for the entire year. Even better, that much recycling saved about 97 million metric tons of emissions that would have spewed into the air had we thrown that paper away.

But seriously, who are the 40 percent of people who still haven't caught on? Perhaps a combination of community, school, and workplace education and more extensive citywide recycling programs will kick us into high gear.

Last Friday, the Global Wind Energy Council released a forecast claiming that the market for wind power will continue to surge. While the economy continues to look scary and unpredictable, wind advocates say the market for wind energy will grow by about 155% by 2012. That's good news for timid investors who are looking for a safe place to stash their nest egg and it's good for the environment -- it's nice when everybody wins.

Right now, global wind capacity is at around 94 GW, in 2012 it's supposed to be at 240 GW. That represents an investment of about $277 billion, and almost every indication points toward a continuous acceleration throughout the next decade. So, you might want to buy some stock in GE soon, because it looks like they're going to be selling turbines faster than they can turn them out.