Is it hot in here? Or is it just me?

Global warming gases or just bad for your health?

ClimateGate has given climate change skeptics a lot to gloat about. Yikes, BOTH sides of this argument are fudging the facts to mislead the public?

I just look at the emissions from coal-burning power plants, and want to hold my breath. I think of Dickens' tales of  dirty London air and hacking coughs. This stuff can't possibly be good for my lungs--let alone my atmosphere. See what Physicians for Social Reponsibility recently said about coal burning power plants.

Today, the EPA agreed and declared that tthere was compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health and that they should regulate it under the Clean Air Act. Just a coinkydink that this announcement came on the first day of the international Copenhagen climate talks? I think not.

All members of Congress are not thrilled about this since it takes some big decisions out of their able hands and puts it into a government agency's. I say it's about time for somebody to make a decision about my lungs. The Chamber of Commerce continues its alarmist and nay-saying response, but that's not unexpected.

True, shifting to more efficient energy sources may cost a few billion dollars and some folks may be forced to implement energy conservation actions as energy costs escalate, but I'd like to believe that my grandkids will be healthier.

The EPA's involvement in reducing climate-changing pollution stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision that declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. But the court said the EPA would have to determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health before it could regulate them.

I just can't look at photos like this and think that they are not a danger to public health. Right on, EPA!

The Innovative PLANTBOTTLE™" is on the way

"It's the real thing!" . . . or is it?

The Coca-Cola Company recently announced that Coke and Dasani water bottles will begin to arrive on store shelves in select markets in its innovative PlantBottle™ packaging. They call it the "first generation of PET plastic made partially from plants." The company has a goal of producing 2 billion of these special PET plastic bottles by the end of 2010, reducing their dependence on that non-renewable resource, petroleum..

They are already in use throughout Denmark. "A variety of products, including Coca-Cola, Sprite, Fresca and DASANI will be in Western Canada in the PlantBottle beginning in December and for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games. And for select markets in the Western United States, including Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles, PlantBottle packaging will be used for sparkling brands and DASANI in several sizes, starting in January. Future launches are being planned in other markets, including Brazil, Japan and Mexico and for China's Shanghai Expo in 2010."

"PlantBottle packaging is currently made through a process that turns sugar cane and molasses, a by-product of sugar production, into a key component for PET plastic. The sugar cane being used comes from predominantly rain-fed crops that were processed into ethanol, not refined sugar. Ultimately, the Company's goal is to use non-food, plant-based waste, such as wood chips or wheat stalks, to produce recyclable PET plastic bottles.


While the bio-based component can account for up to 30 percent of the resulting PET plastic in PlantBottle packaging, the percentage varies for bottles that also contain recycled PET. For example, Denmark uses recycled content in its PlantBottle packaging. The combined plant-based and recycled content makes up 65 percent of the material, with 50 percent coming from recycled material and 15 percent from plant-based material.

For the PlantBottle packaging in the United States and Canada, up to 30 percent of the content in the PET plastic comes from plants."

The news release states that they will be "100 percent recyclable," but I can't get my head around that claim. If they contain 30 percent sugar cane and molasses, how can they be recycled with traditional PET bottles? Would not that contaminate the end product?

Copenhagen Talks Begin Today

For the next ten days, global climate talks will be in the headlines. Thanks to those leaked ClimateGate emails, even more focus is on this summit. Will diplomats from 192 countries--as well as 110 heads of state (including President Obama on the last day)--make any progress on limiting greenhouse gases?

Recently, the U.S., China, and India announced new targets. South Africa just pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 34 percent by 2020.

Just how BRIGHT is our future?

There's a MAJOR energy solution to climate change taking place in in Zurich and other Swiss cities. In their "2000 watt" program, they aim to  reduce the amount of energy residents use by two-thirds and become a 2000-watt society.

How did they arrive at 2000 watts? By dividing all the energy being consumed on earth by the number of people on earth.  It works out to about 2,000 watts per person--roughly the energy it takes to keep twenty 100-watt light bulbs burning. The Swiss are much more energy efficient than Americans, who use 12,000 watts each. Europeans use about half that much--6000 watts on average. Africans and Bangladeshis use less than 700.

How close are the Swiss to their goal? Down to about 3500 watts. Not quite 2000 but a vast improvement with no loss of comfort. Swiss cities are investing serious public money in the 2000 watt vision. making trains and trams easier and cheaper than cars, and encouraging people to cycle or walk.

JCSA Water Conservation Rebate Changes

December 4, 2009 update

Due to reduced revenues from the economic downturn, the James City Service Authority (JCSA) will reduce rebate amounts effective January 1, 2010 but will continue to place an emphasis on water conservation.

Continue to install waterwise landscaping and purchase rain barrels, rain sensors, cisterns, WaterSense toilets, and high-efficiency dishwashers and washing machines. The rebates are still available, just a bit less.

Check here for application postmarked or received after January 1, 2010.

A Christmas "Wish List" for the Chesapeake Bay

If only the Chesapeake Bay could climb up onto Santa's lap.

On the top of the Bay's wish list would be the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act, recently introduced in Congress. It would create legally-binding pollution reduction mandates for Bay area states through a nutrient pollution trading program that would provide as much as $300 million a year to farmers who meet basic standards for reducing fertilizer runoff. Then there's the other stuff that runs off chicken and dairy farms.

But the Virginia Farm Bureau is the latest Scrooge opposing this bill, afraid that the regulations will be too expensive and put farmers out of business. Now I'm all for the farmers, but there is some accountability here. Agriculture is responsible for about half of the nitrogen and phosphorus in the Bay.

Earlier Scrooges were the American Farm Bureau, the National Chicken Council, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Fertilizer Institute, and the Virginia Agribusiness Council.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (the Chesapeake's godmother who is watching out for her health and welfare) claims that the bill was carefully designed to do the opposite:

The "World Resources Institute, a think tank that specializes in market-based environmental programs, concludes that the bill would potentially double the amount of federal money available to farmers to pay for environmentally-friendly practices, such as planting trees along streams and building fences to keep cattle out of creeks. That would not only reduce runoff pollution into the Bay, but it would also create jobs and bolster the agricultural economy. . . Moreover, the bill would provide at least $96 million for technical assistance to farmers, and another $75 million in a grant program to fund pollution reduction strategies. There will also be opportunties for more in future federal Farm Bills (on top of the big increases that farmers received in the 2008 Farm Bill).

MAKING CHRISTMAS GREENer

Feeling guilty about the over consumption of “stuff” that we succumb to every Christmas shopping season? Can we use the words “sustainable” and “Christmas” in the same breath? One eye-opener that I read recently is that, by 2030, China will consume more paper than the world produces today if they follow the current American rate of consumption. Goodbye to the world’s forests.

Then there’s the swelling flow of garbage associated with a throwaway economy. Did you know that between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day, garbage haulers lift about 25 percent more trash into their trucks than usual? That’s a lot of packaging, wrapping paper, ribbons, and wasted food going into our holiday “wastelines.”

Green guilt be gone! No matter what you’re shopping for, ask yourself “Can I get it in green?” Not the color of the sweater—but whether it’s made from recycled or organic materials, or by fair trade workers.

Perhaps the recession will influence us to buy less this year. Give at least some green gifts. Here is some additional “food for thought” as you ponder your gift-giving habits.

All that glitters is not gold. Producing the average gold ring results in 20 tons of mine waste, obliterates the landscape, and uses a lot of water in areas where it’s becoming a scarce resource.

Did you know that Tiffany and Kmart have something in common? They are among the 60 jewelry retailers that now support the “No Dirty Gold” campaign for more responsible gold production. Although the No Dirty Gold campaign has been around since 2004, gold mining is the latest “bad boy” to join mountaintop removal coal mining, Hummers, and “blood diamonds” as companies take closer looks at their supply chains.

If gold jewelry is on your Christmas shopping list, see the retailers who are pursuing “cleaner” sources of precious metals at http://www.nodirtygold.org/. Last year, Wal-Mart launched a unique “traceable jewelry line,” called Love, Earth. Local stores confirmed that they carry some of the 32 gold and silver items: “There’s a batch number on each tag with links that lets you trace the jewelry from mine to market.”

Cyber mania — Began this past Cyber Monday and will continue throughout the Christmas shopping season. But stuff matters. Two recent reports by EPA’s Joshuah Stolaroff are turning “going green” on its head. Stolaroff's studies conclude that the stuff we buy and the packaging that comes with that stuff represent our biggest contribution to global warming. Even more than the electricity used by that stuff, or the amount of fuel our stuff burns on the highway! He shows that plastic and the paper in which our products are packaged account for 44 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions.

His conclusion: choosing to buy products made from recycled materials, repairing items rather than replacing, or choosing to rent what we don't need to buy can be some of the most important choices we make for the environment. Cell phones, appliances, and cars dismantled and remade by the same company that manufactured them? What a sustainable idea! You can see some amazing graphs and the report at http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ghg_land_and_materials_management.pdf.

What can YOU do? Refrain from buying every gadget that comes along. Give at least some green gifts. Buy products made from recycled materials, repair items rather than replacing, or rent what you don't need to buy. If you want a holiday chuckle, ask the jewelry counter clerk for conflict-free jewelry.

Recycle your Christmas tree! Drop it off free of charge by January 31, 2010 at any of the three James City County Convenience Centers. The convenience centers are located at 107 Tewning Road, 1204 Jolly Pond Road, and 185 Industrial Boulevard (Hankins Industrial Park). For hours of operation, please visit http://www.jccegov.com/  or call the Solid Waste Division at 565-0971. Please remember to remove the tree stand and all decorations, including tinsel, before dropping it off.

Dirty electronics?

Congo Conflict minerals?

I’ve never thought about where the raw materials in cell phones, laptops, MP3 players, digital cameras, and video game systems came from. But the "Cyber Monday" marketing gimmick to induce consumers to buy more gadgets than we really need led me to information about the “no blood for gadgets” campaign. Remember “blood diamonds”? The same is now true for electronics and jewelry.

A recent 60 Minutes segment (with the Enough Project of the Center for American Progress) covered the trade in “conflict minerals” for our electronics and jewelry and how it finances the atrocities and sexual violence against civilians in Congo, Sudan, and Uganda. Militias and armies there are warring over the ores that produce tin, tungsten, and tantalum (the 3 Ts)—as well as gold.

Take a closer look at the raw materials for the global electronics industry:
• Tin (produced from cassiterite) – used inside your cell phone and all electronic products as a solder on circuit boards. The biggest use of tin worldwide is in electronic products. Congolese armed groups earn approximately $85 million per year from trade in tin.
• Tantalum (produced from “coltan”) – used to store electricity in capacitors in iPods, digital cameras, and cell phones. Sixty-five to 80 percent of the world’s tantalum is used in electronic products. Congolese armed groups earn an estimated $8 million per year from trading in tantalum.
• Tungsten (produced from wolframite) – used to make your cell phone or Blackberry vibrate. Tungsten is a growing source of income for armed groups in Congo, with armed groups currently earning approximately $2 million annually.
• Gold – used in jewelry and as a component in electronics. Extremely valuable and easy to smuggle, Congolese armed groups are earning between $44 million to $88 million per year from gold

What can YOU do? Not much at his point, except refraining from buying every gadget that comes along. The Enough Project is asking electronics companies to not turn a blind eye toward Congo’s conflicts and mineral trade. This will require them to change their procurement practices and demand that their suppliers provide proof of where their minerals are sourced from. It happened to the diamond industry, so it can happen here. None of the big electronics companies want to fuel these deadliest wars, but the bottom line rules. See http://www.enoughproject.org/  for more information.

Currently, electronics manufacturers do not have a system to trace the sources of their raw materials. That may change if the Conflict Minerals Trade Act of 2009, recently introduced by Congressman Jim McDermott (D-Washington), passes. This bill will also help raise awareness about the issue to both the public and policy makers. If passed, this bill would create a system of audits and import declarations that would distinguish those goods imported into the United States that contain conflict minerals. The resulting transparency would be an important step forward in helping break the links between the mineral trade and human rights violations.

Climate bill in the Senate

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., has become the latest moderate Democrat to bail on the Senate climate bill, Politico recently reported.

That was the Boxer-Kerry-Lieberman-Graham compromise that included a push for more nuclear power.

Senator Webb was not enamored with this version, so he introduced his own version (along with Lamar Alexander, R-TN). It focuses even more on nuclear power: $20 billion worth of worker training, loan guarantees, and research.

Alexander said, "This is a piece of legislation that could stand on its own and could be supported by senators who favor economy-wide cap-and-trade and senators who don't favor one."

Dominion offers a nifty tour of a nuclear plant online. Virginia has four nuclear reactors: two across the James River in Surry, and another two in Louisa county (North Anna).

Worried about the disposal of nuclear waste? A lot of senators may be too. So it will be interesting to follow the progress of this bill. BTW, the spent nuclear fuel from Virginia's plants is still stored in Virginia.

Water, water everywhere?

Not really, but the latest good news (from the U.S. Geological Survey folks) is that Ameicans are using LESS water than we did 35 years ago. That's in spite of a population growth of 30 percent in the last 25 years.

U.S. water usage peaked in 1975 and 1980. I wonder what happened in those particular years?

In 2005, Americans used 410 billion gallons of water each day, slightly less than in 2000. 49 percent of this water was used to produce electricity; 31 percent for irigation; 9 percent for the public supply. More efficient irrigation systems and improved alternative technologies at power plants were factors in this drop.

We can expect water to be among the topics addressed at the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (December 8-18).

Then there's the "hidden footprint" of water that's used in manufacturing foods and beverages. Wouldn't that be an interesting addition to the labels on foods and sodas?

What can YOU do? In addition to turning off the faucet when you brush your teeth (a no brainer when you think about it), the biggest consumer of water in our area (other than power plants and industry) is your lawn irrigation system. But that's not a big problem until next summer, you say? That's true, but you can do something right now. Plant a few ornamental native grasses if you're replacing some dead or overgrown shrubs. Reduce the size of your lawn while you're at it.

GreenER TVs on the horizon

California will become the first state to mandate how energy-efficient its TVs must be, says the California Energy Commission. They'll set the trend soon when they announce new rules for 2011.

California's tougher rules on automobile emissions set the scene for tougher stndards nationwide. So this could be the death knell for those huge power-hungry high-def TVs that many of us have been buying.

We don't think of coal-burning power plants as we settle down in front of our TVs, but the electricity meter outside your home is madly whirling.

Offshore Wind Farms

. . . may be coming our way.

The mid-Atlantic coast is prime for wind farms if the funding and regulatory hurdles are handled, according to three area governors.

In a recent joint announcement, Virginia's governor Tim Kaine, Maryland's Martin O’Malley, and Delawares's Jack Markell signed a tri-state partnership agreement to encourage off-shore wind energy along the mid-Atlantic coast. How to transmit the electricity inland from off-shore wind farms will be a major challenge.

Delaware has been working with Bluewater Wind to get things going off 13 miles away from Rehoboth Beach. New Jersey is also working with Bluewater and two other companies to develop wind farms off its coast.

The Baltimore Sun reported that the Maryland Energy Administration is looking at building windmills a dozen or more miles off the state's 31-mile Atlantic coastline.
“With our extensive coastline and highly-educated workforce, Virginia is particularly well-suited to explore offshore wind energy opportunities,” said Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine. “In these tough economic times, it's more important than ever that we invest in renewable energy sources that will create jobs and provide cleaner, more affordable energy for our families and communities. One of the best things we can do to lift ourselves out of a challenging economy today is to invest in a greener, cleaner tomorrow.”

BPA in the headlines again!

I've posted warnings about bisphenol A, commonly abbreviated as BPA, during the past few months. Consumers Reports' recent study puts BPA back in the headlines again. It's nasty stuff--an endocrine disruptor--that's already in all of us. But it definitely does not belong in our food, and that's where Consumers Report found it.

Last June, the Endocrine Society released a health warning, saying that low level exposure to BPA adversely affects male and female reproduction, thyroid function, metabolism, and could increase obesity. That last one was the subject of a recent major news magazine article.

How does BPA get into our bodies? Babies used to get a bunch of it from their bottles, but most baby bottles no longer contain the stuff. But the food industry still packs a lot of our foods into cans lined with this plastic-like substance. Then it can "leach" (another posting subject) right into your baby formula or string beans.

Consumers Report looked at 19 common supermarket products, and found that “almost all” of them showed measurable levels of BPA. Soups and canned beans contained the most. In fact, some contained  80 times more than experts' recommended daily upper limit--and in ONE serving.

The FDA is looking at BPA again, but their 2008 draft review based their findings on studies funded by the chemical industry (the ones who make the stuff). That's fox and henhouse doings. Perhaps it's time for the FDA to take another look?