Part four.

Part three in an ongoing series.

According to two new reports, almost all biofuels being produced today create more greenhouse-gas emissions than their conventional counterparts if the full costs of producing them are taken into account.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.

“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.” [...]

Dr. Searchinger said the only possible exception he could see for now was sugar cane grown in Brazil, which take relatively little energy to grow and is readily refined into fuel. He added that governments should quickly turn their attention to developing biofuels that did not require cropping, such as those from agricultural waste products.

“This land use problem is not just a secondary effect — it was often just a footnote in prior papers,”. “It is major. The comparison with fossil fuels is going to be adverse for virtually all biofuels on cropland.”

In response to the study, ten eminent ecologists and environmental biologists have sent a letter to President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking them to reform the nation's biofuels policy (which heavily subsidizes crop production for biofuels.)

The Sierra Club just sent me a note inviting me to speak on a Feb. 25 panel at REI about the governor's new climate recommendations, AKA A Comprehensive Climate Approach for Washington: Draft Recommendations of the Washington Climate Advisory Team. (Mark your calendars!)

Anyway, it's a promising document, full of good, meaty recommendations on land use, growth management, and transportation policy. (And the list of things that will happen if we don't deal with climate change now is truly frightening: extinctions, landslides, heat-related illnesses, smog, increases in pests, changes in growing seasons--and that's just the half of it).

Anyway, good, compelling stuff. But I do have one minor beef: The graphics in this report are all hilariously incomprehensible. Seriously, if you can translate this:

... then you either have an advanced degree in jargon (and a lot of patience)... or you work for the government.

The people at the Washington Toxics Coalition (they're anti–toxic things, though their name sounds pro–) are looking out for the babies: Just today they launched Safe Start for Kids, "a guide to choosing children’s products free of harmful chemicals... [including] personal care items like lotions, shampoos, and sunscreen."

They're also having a rally for toxic-free toys (or is that against toxic ones?) in Olympia on Feb. 7th. A 20-foot-tall rubber ducky (presumably unintoxicated) will be present. QUACK.

Infants and toddlers who are regularly exposed to baby lotion, baby shampoo, and baby powder (uh, yeah, products that are specifically designed for safe use by babies) carry high levels of phthalates -- hormone-altering chemicals that can cause fertility problems and other reproductive disorders later in life. The study found detectable amounts of at least one type of phthalate in the urine of every baby tested; more than 80 percent had seven or more different types.

Phthalates are also found in many cosmetics and other products used by adults. The cosmetic industry is not required to list phthalates as ingredients.

...there's cheap talk, and then there's real action.

In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.

Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable--on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.

To prevent retailers from switching to paper bags--which are biodegradable, but create more greenhouse gases during production--Ireland's minister for the environment threatened to tax those too. And Irish retailers, who aggressively opposed the tax, are now big backers of it.

According to the NYT, 42 billion plastic bags are used worldwide every year, and most wind up in landfills. Except, of course, for the tens of millions that wind up in forests, fields, oceans, rivers, and streams. Also in today's NYT, this op-ed about eco tourists at Los Glaciares National Park in Argentina:

The most striking thing about the drive out of El Calafate on the way to the Patagonian glaciers is the trash. Sheer, flimsy, white plastic bags, tens of thousands of them, are strewn across acres of land. The harsh wind has blown them in curtains up against the chain-link fences around construction sites; thousands have been tilled into the mud of wide tire tracks; thousands more, tattered by sharp nettles, festoon the low, clumping bushes that cover the landscape.

Taxing this shit out of plastic bags, changing what we expect at the grocery store, encouraging people to use cloth bags or, when they buy one or two items, to carry those things home in their hands or toss them in the bags and backpacks they carried into the store when they arrived: If we can't make this kind of change--a small, simple, easy change, one that could implemented overnight--what hope is there for making the kind of big, systemic changes we're going to need to make to slow or halt climate change?

Greg? Sally? Tom? Tim? Nick? Jean? Richard? Richard? Jan? Bruce? Slap a tax on plastic grocery bags in Seattle.

Sunscreen worn by swimmers, snorkelers, and divers:

The sunscreen that you dutifully slather on before a swim on the beach may be protecting your body--but a new study finds that the chemicals are also killing coral reefs worldwide.

Four commonly found sunscreen ingredients can awaken dormant viruses in the symbiotic algae called zooxanthellae that live inside reef-building coral species....

The researchers estimate that 4,000 to 6,000 metric tons of sunscreen wash off swimmers annually in oceans worldwide, and that up to 10 percent of coral reefs are threatened by sunscreen-induced bleaching.

Via Towleroad.

Although, as Josh noted earlier, Think Progress did a pretty thorough job calling bullshit on Bush's final SOTU last night, one thing they didn't mention was that Bush's "energy independence" proposal (how I hate that phrase!) completely ignored one of the most effective means of reducing oil dependence and greenhouse gases: Investing in public transportation.

Fortunately, the American Public Transportation Association (responsible for some of the most focused, righteous press releases EVER) is on the case:

With high gas prices, many Americans are feeling the pinch and using public transportation is one way that they can save money. President Bush talked about a plan to put more money in the average citizen’s pocket. What he failed to mention was that households that use public transportation save more than $6,200 every year, compared to a household with no access to public transportation. This is a significant amount of money and represents more than the average household pays for food each year.

While mentioning energy independence, President Bush failed to recognize that public transportation is part of the solution, saving 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline every year. This is the equivalent of 108 million cars filling up, almost 300,000 each day. One of the quickest ways to reduce our country’s dependence on oil is for people to use the public transportation system in their community. If public transportation was expanded so that more Americans could use public transit, this savings would grow and our national goal of realizing energy independence would be closer to being achieved.

Public transportation is more effective at reducing greenhouse gases than environmentally friendly household activities which everyone should do, such as home weatherizing, changing to efficient light bulbs, and using efficient appliances. An individual switching to public transit can reduce their daily carbon emissions by 20 pounds; that’s more than 4,800 pounds in a year. Compare this to:

Home weatherizing and adjusting the thermostat for heating and cooling saves 2,847 pounds of carbon per year. Transit use saves almost twice the carbon.

Replacing five incandescent bulbs to lower wattage compact fluorescent lamps saves 445 pounds of CO2 per year. Transit use saves more than ten times the CO2.

Replacing an older refrigerator freezer with a highly efficient one saves 335 pounds of CO2 per year. Taking public transportation saves more than fourteen times the carbon.

Take that, home weatherizing, replacing incandescent bulbs, and replacing an older refrigerator freezer!

As the Washington Post reported yesterday (via Grist), drought conditions produced by climate change could force nuclear power plants to scale back or shut down later this year, "because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate." Of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors, 24 are located in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought, and all but two are located on lakes or rivers, relying on submerged pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for cooling and condensing steam. If the plants do shut down, replacement power will cost ten times as much as nuclear. Nuclear plants are not designed for the wear and tear of repeatedly stopping and starting. Whatever you think of nuclear power, it'll be pretty hard to argue that it's a panacea for climate change if, you know, it doesn't work.

Where are the two major Democratic candidates on nuclear power? Obama supports continued use of nuclear power; his sixth biggest contributor is a company called Exelon, which owns and operates more nuclear plants than any other company. Although Clinton has said she's "agnostic" about nuclear, she is also on the record as being "very skeptical that nuclear could become acceptable in most regions of the country, and I am doubtful that we have yet figured out how to deal with the waste," adding, "we should not be putting a heavy emphasis on nuclear."

The world's first commercial cargo ship partially powered by a giant kite is setting sail from Germany to Venezuela.

The designers of the MS Beluga Skysails say the computer-controlled kite, measuring 160sq m (1,722sq ft), could cut fuel consumption by as much as 20%.

Rest of the story is here.

The SkySails website ("turn the wind into profit!") is here.

As I've written, I think it's great, in theory, that more than 700 cities have signed on to the Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, spearheaded by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. Under the agreement, cities pledge to reduce their total greenhouse-gas emissions to eight percent below 1990 levels by 2012. (The agreement came in the wake of the Bush Administration's refusal to do anything about climate, including ratify the Kyoto Treaty; the idea is that local governments should take matters into their own hands.) As I've also written (and as Mayor Nickels, to his credit, has acknowledged), that reduction level is totally inadequate: scientists now predict that if we want to prevent catastrophic climate change, we need to get greenhouse-gas emissions down 80 percent below current levels by 2050--and that's the optimistic prediction.

But a bigger question than where we set the climate goalposts is whether local efforts are working in the first place. The agreement is non-binding on cities, so even if a city signs, there's nothing to guarantee that it will follow through with policy changes that work toward the goals. According to several accounts that have come out over the past year, many cities are not meeting the goals they agreed to; some mayors, in fact, appear not to even remember signing the agreement. According to a story in the San Diego Voice:

Vista [California] Mayor Morris Vance said he vaguely remembered signing it. He said he asked city staff to "come back with some recommendations," though that hasn't happened.

"I remember at the time I thought it was a good idea," Vance said.

In Imperial Beach, Mayor Jim Janney said his city hadn't followed up with any specific action, either. "It's not like we've ignored it completely," he said, "but we haven't pushed real hard." [...]

Some cities have already begun taking steps to address climate change. La Mesa added three hybrid cars to its fleet. Solana Beach replaced a gas guzzling pickup with an electric car. San Diego mandated recycling.

While officials in those cities laud their progress, many also admit they aren't likely to meet the 2012 emissions reduction goals they agreed to. Mary Sessom, Lemon Grove's mayor, said that's why she has refused to sign on to the mayors' accord.

"It doesn't do anything," she said. "Signing a piece of paper doesn't mean we intend to do anything about climate change. Signing a piece of paper gives you political cover."

In green San Francisco, meanwhile,

"We are not on track," said Shirley Hansen, a [County of San Francisco] Civil Grand Jury member. "In order to meet this goal, we will have to triple our efforts now for the next five years."

One reason the city hasn't accomplished its goals is because the San Francisco Municipal Railway is under-funded, Hansen said.

Green New York isn't meeting the goals either. Nor are many much smaller cities, many of which have tiny budgets and no extra money to hire sustainability consultants or do much more than add a hybrid or two to their municipal fleet.

And that's a problem. Cities will have to play a role in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions--even if the federal government does step up and mandate better fuel efficiency, increases in funding for public transit, targets for renewable energy use, and a cap-and-trade system for pollution. Cities can mandate building standards, determine where development will be allowed, tax or toll auto usage to encourage transit ridership, and a long list of other things the federal government simply cannot do. It isn't enough for city governments to reduce their own emissions; they have to do more to encourage (or, better, require) citizens to change their own habits, too. Mandates from state government may be part of the answer (see Josh's upcoming post on some smart, green bills coming up in this year's legislative session), but local governments have a lot to answer for. If they aren't working toward the goals they pledged to aim for, no one will.

Hi Stranger,

I'm writing to thank you, and to show you how a pile of your old newspapers inspired me to take better care of the environment. Architects and designers here in Seattle, my roommate and I couldn't help but notice a gallery call for "chairs made of recycled materials." Admittedly, we enjoy letting Strangers pile up beside the couch as much as we enjoy reading them, so we put two and two together and the idea matured as a reminder of an important problem we all face today--the current state of our environment.

"Making a chair out of Stranger issues" quickly became "giving garbage new life." Waste can equal food. It must, actually. So, I thought I would share our progress with you. There are some videos on our blog showing how we're using your newspapers and some old cardboard. The gallery opens February 15th, and there will be a Stranger scrap chair in your honor.

Thank you for writing about local environmental issues.

Jonathan

Here's a mock-up.

Scientists to Make Cows Fart Like Kangaroos to Cool the Planet

Cow farts are a source of greenhouse gases, while kangaroo farts are methane free thanks to a particular bacteria in their stomachs. Now, in a bizarre twist of science-reality, scientists from Australia are trying to neutralize cow-produced methane by transferring that kangaroo bacteria to cattle and sheep’s guts.

Via BoingBoing.

Remember way back before 9/11 when the Bush administration was fumbling downed military planes in China and government stem-cell funding? Back when there was a lot of chatter by Cheney and other republicans that Alaska needed to be explored for oil? Well guess what's happening now:

The federal government will open up nearly 46,000 square miles off Alaska's northwest coast to petroleum leases next month, a decision condemned by enviromental groups that contend the industrial activity will harm northern marine mammals.

The Minerals Management Agency planned the sale in the Chukchi Sea without taking into account changes in the Arctic brought on by global warming and proposed insufficient protections for polar bears, walrus, whales and other species that could be harmed by drilling rigs or spills, according to the groups.

The lease sale in an area slightly smaller than the state of Pennsylvania was planned without information as basic as the polar bear and walrus populations, said Pamela A. Miller, Arctic coordinator with Northern Alaska Environmental Center. The lease sale is among the largest acreage offered in the Alaska region.

_{Photo: Alex Berezow}

Tomorrow will be the shortest day of the year for those of us in the northern hemisphere. In Seattle, there will be a mere 8.5 hours between sunrise and sunset.

True. (Via NYT.)

The company employs what it calls a “package flow” software program, which among other hyperefficient practices involving the packing and sorting of its cargo, maps out routes for every one of its drivers, drastically reducing the number of left-hand turns they make (taking into consideration, of course, those instances where not to make the left-hand turn would result in a ridiculously circuitous route).

Last year, according to Heather Robinson, a U.P.S. spokeswoman, the software helped the company shave 28.5 million miles off its delivery routes, which has resulted in savings of roughly three million gallons of gas and has reduced CO2 emissions by 31,000 metric tons. So what can Brown do for you? We can’t speak to how good or bad they are in the parcel-delivery world, but they won’t be clogging up the left-hand lane while they do their business.

(Click here for full story, thanks to Matt Hickey for the link.)

Greenland's ice sheet is melting fast and there might not be summer ice in the Arctic by the summer of 2012, not 2040 as researchers previously feared.

"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."

Hm... I don't know how I'll break this to my pal that just bought a condo in lower Manhattan. How long until Canal Street is actual a canal?

If the air quality is so bad that we can't use our fireplaces, should the city really be sending out folks with leaf blowers to--no shit--blow the leaves off the bushes in Cal Anderson park for this third time in a week? If we can't muster up the nerve to do the little things--get rid of leaf blowers, ban or require deposits on plastic grocery bags--let's stop pretending that we're going to do anything about the big things like, oh, seriously reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Complete story (and more pictures!) here.

Get better, lil' brudder!

(And thanks to Matt Hickey for the link.)

Don't divorce the bastard.

Forget about staying together for the sake of the kids. Researchers have a new reason: Do it for the planet.

An analysis of data on domestic relations and resource use in the U.S. and 11 other countries shows that divorce leads to more households--so more land gets built up and more building materials are used. They concluded that in the U.S. circa 2000, there were about 6 million "extra" households due to divorce.

Worse yet, the households have fewer people in them. So on a per capita basis, divorced residents consume more goods, use more electricity and water, and thus contribute to the emission of more greenhouse gases than those whose marriages are intact.

Clark Williams-Derry on density at the Daily Score, the Sightline Institutes' blog...

Every so often, we get criticized for being too fixated on fostering compact neighborhoods. "Density goes against what the housing market wants," say some--ignoring the fact that most downtown housing developments around these parts get snapped up pretty quickly. Or, "Density is driving up the cost of middle-class housing," which is simply backwards--density is a response to high housing prices, not a cause.

So we think there are plenty of good reasons for policymakers to be favorably disposed to fostering more housing close to downtown. But the following chart illustrates another key reason: Living in a dense neighborhood has less impact on the climate.

The chart was taken from this awesome 2006 article in the Journal of Urban Planning and Development, on the total climate and energy impacts of city vs. suburban living in Toronto, Ontario. The basic finding--living in a dense urban neighborhood cuts your GHG emissions by about 60 percent. Obviously, it's just one study, for one city. But the authors took a fairly comprehensive look at energy use, and their findings are generally consistent with just about every other piece of literature I've seen on the subject. Really, this is just another piece of evidence adding to a fairly solid academic consensus: denser neighborhoods mean less climate warming emissions.

It's a great point, one that can't be made too often--particularly around here. People that want to do something about climate change are not allowed to bitch about dense urban development in Seattle. If you think climate change is a threat, embrace dense development. If you can't do the latter you need to shut the fuck up about the former.

Don't dig density? You're not green. Period.