Polar Bears Don't Lie

Geothermal heat

Lisa Haderlein — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:10:00 GMT

Friends of mine just replaced their traditional gas heating-cooling system with a geothermal system. The geothermal system utilizes the constant ground temperature to generate heat in the winter and dissipate heat in the summer, and results in virtually no CO2 emissions.

If you go 10-15 feet underground, the ground is pretty much always 53-55 degrees - year-round. A geothermal system includes about 1200 feet of water-filled tubes that are 15 to 125 feet underground (the tubes are installed using something called a directional bore, which threads the tubing underground without having to dig a trench or dig up the property). The water flowing through the tubing returns to the house at that ground temperature, and is then used by a heat pump to translate the temperature difference between the indoor air and the water to heat or cool the home.

And because the heat pump uses very little energy to operate, the systems dramatically reduce the energy consumption to heat and cool home. AND, they generate essentially no CO2.

These systems cost 2-3 times more to install than a traditional furnace-A/C system, but will pay for themselves in 5-10 years through reduced utility costs. Obviously, like other alternative energy systems, geothermal is for someone who is thinking long-term!!

I spoke to someone who installs the systems, and he told me about a new subdivision going in in Hampshire IL, that will have geothermal systems for all the homes. The installer said that the systems are more cost-effective to install for new construction than for a retrofit, but are still expensive enough that they are pretty much only being used by some custom home builders. The production builders who are mostly interested in big homes for less money aren't thinking about long-term investments that will pay-off for the homeowner in a few years. But, maybe as the prices of gas and electricity keep going up, this type of system will become standard in new construction because people will start demanding it?

Coral Reef project

Lisa Haderlein — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:00:00 GMT

The Institute for Figuring is working on a really cool crocheted coral reef.

The website says the reef is "a woolly celebration of the intersection of higher geometry and feminine handicraft, and a testimony to the disappearing wonders of the marine world." The primary factor leading to the death of coral reefs around the world is Global Warming.

The above picture is part of the crochet reef. Below is a photo of part of an actual coral reef! While the wool reef is beautiful, let's hope that isn't the only type of reef we have left a century from now!

The website includes a nice explanation of how global warming affects coral. The warming water, plus increased acidity (due to increased CO2 levels in the oceans), plus increased cyclone activity all impact the reefs.

The Institute For Figuring is an educational organization dedicated to enhancing the public understanding of figures and figuring techniques. From the physics of snowflakes and the hyperbolic geometry of sea slugs, to the mathematics of paper folding and graphical models of the human mind, the Institute takes as its purview a complex ecology of figuring.

Live Earth Impact Assessment

Lisa Haderlein — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:54:00 GMT

The Live Earth concerts that took place July 7, 2007, set out to have zero net emissions of global warming gases. The group just released a comprehensive Report that reviews the steps they took planning the event, waste produced, and energy used for the event (which featured 7 concerts on 7 continents with 150 performers and about 1 million concert-goes).

Not surprisingly, the break-down of energy used showed that 87% came from travel by the people attending the concerts - not the performers, but the audiences! Tokyo and Singapore did the best job of using public transportation to attend the event.

Carbon Neutral Thinking

Lisa Haderlein — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:04:00 GMT

The organization I work for had its first fundraising event on Sunday. I decided to use it as an opportunity to figure out how to make the event "carbon neutral." The biggest benefit to the project was in learning how to think through what it means to be "carbon neutral" in practice. That meant understanding the CO2 implications of our actions - not just viewing an event in isolation, but really thinking about what it means to the planet, and then thinking about what choices we can make to counteract the impacts.

Basically, there were three steps in the process:

First, we had to figure out how much CO2 the event would generate.

We were hoping for about 200 people, and I estimated that they would arrive in 150 cars, and that each car would travel an average of 40 miles round trip,and the average car would get 20 mpg. We would have the facility for 4 hours, and a meal would be served.

I used several calculators to help me estimate the impact.

Travel was easy. Assuming 150 cars traveling 40 miles each, getting 25 mpg, that's 6,000 miles, 240 gallons of gas, which translates into 4,800 pounds of CO2 (20 pounds per gallon of gas).

The facility's CO2 emissions were more difficult. The best calculator I found was through a site for The Climate Trust in Oregon. They have a companion website called Carbon Counter that has calculators and allows you to purchase offsets. Through their site, I calculated that the facility use would generate about 3,000 additional pounds.

So, that put us at roughly 4 tons (2,000 pounds in a ton).

We could have purchased offsets to help generate clean energy in some other part of the country, but that just didn't seem quite right. So instead, we decided to figure out how many trees we would have to plant locally to absorb the carbon produced by the event.

One tree, over it's 90-120 year lifespan will absorb a ton of carbon in its roots, trunk and branches. So, if we planted four trees, over the next 100 or so years, they would absorb an amount of CO2 equivalent to the amount generated by the event.

That seemed kind of lame.

Planting 400 trees would absorb about 4 tons of carbon in one year (on average). And they would do that year in and year out for about 100 years. That is great, but planting 400 trees is a lot of work!

I checked on some tree "offset" websites and found that they use the figure of 3 trees per ton of carbon for offsetting your CO2. Well, if we planted 12 trees, that would still take 30 years to absorb the CO2. That seemed slightly less lame than 100 years, but still, 30 years is a full generation.

Instead, we decided to take a middle position and go with 10 trees per ton - a 10 year return, plus the trees will continue absorbing carbon for about 90 years after the initial 10.

Just think, if everyone planted trees to offset their carbon! Not a bad thing.

The third step in the process was planting the trees. And we did. 42 oak trees were planted on October 1st as part of a project to reforest the once abundant woodlands of this area. And we know those trees will be doing something else - they will be absorbing CO2 as the grow! A two-fer!

Trees & Global Warming

Lisa Haderlein — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:04:00 GMT

A Fresh Squeeze story casts doubt on the common mantra to "plant more trees" to combat global warming.

Quoting from the article, which cites a study released by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: “New tropical trees are very effective in mitigating climate change,” said atmospheric scientist Govindasamy Bala, who led the study. “New trees in mid-latitudes have near-zero climate-mitigation effect. Planting new trees in high latitudes will accelerate global warming.”

The article goes on to say that: "Although trees sequester carbon dioxide, the study showed that at latitudes greater than 50, this is cancelled out by the extra sunlight they absorb. Forest canopies capture more sunlight than the ice and snow which typically cover high latitudes. Less reflected light means more heat is held to the Earth’s surface, increasing the effects of global warming."

There is still debate about how much of an impact planting trees locally will have on balancing carbon emissions. We live at about 42 degrees latitude, so it is hardly tropical - yet. We also tend to have deciduous trees - meaning trees that shed their leaves in the fall. One of the things that does is allow for reflected light from ice and snow. We see very few "closed canopies" in the winter around here. Also, a lot of carbon in stored in the actual trunk, roots, and branches of the tree (about 1 ton over the life of the tree) - carbon that would go free otherwise. So, in the balance, I think planting more trees has to be a good thing.

Arctic mammals showing signs of trouble

Lisa Haderlein — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:21:00 GMT

According to two recent reports, both polar bears and walruses are showing the effects of global warming.

There are only about 24,500 polar bears remaining on the planet. Despite some erroneous statements in the blogosphere, this number is in fact lower than historic levels. The naysayers point to polar bear population recovery following over-harvest decades ago. This is hardly the same thing.

Dr. Andrew Derocher, Chair of the IUCN (World Conservation Union) SSC (Species Survival Commission) Polar Bear Specialist Group summarized the polar bears' plight quit succinctly:

"... no habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears. This never was an issue of polar bears alone. The only effective conservation approach is to protect the habitat and this is an issue of climate change. You can distort the issue any way you so desire. At the end of the day, the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species follows shortly thereafter (or before).

"Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things."

There is an excellent article by Joseph Romm posted on Grist.

There is also a technical report on the polar bear topic that was published in Integrative & Comparative Biology. This one quote from the article sums the situation up pretty clearly: "...it is unlikelythat polar bears will survive as a species if the sea ice disappearscompletely as has been predicted by some.^"

Quoting an Associated Press story: "Thousands of walrus have appeared on Alaska's northwest coast in what conservationists are calling a dramatic consequence of global warming melting the Arctic sea ice.

"Alaska's walrus, especially breeding females, in summer and fall are usually found on the Arctic ice pack. But the lowest summer ice cap on record put sea ice far north of the outer continental shelf, the shallow, life-rich shelf of ocean bottom in the Bering and Chukchi seas.

"Walrus feed on clams, snails and other bottom dwellers. Given the choice between an ice platform over water beyond their 630-foot diving range or gathering spots on shore, thousands of walrus picked Alaska's rocky beaches.

"It looks to me like animals are shifting their distribution to find prey," said Tim Ragen, executive director of the federal Marine Mammal Commission. "The big question is whether they will be able to find sufficient prey in areas where they are looking."

The walrus's situation is compounded by wasteful and illegal killing of these animals for their tusks. Tusk ivory commands a high price in Japan where the tusk ivory is used to make small seals called hanko, and also has high value in the market place where ignorant people still buy ivory carved objects, not thinking about the terrible damage they are causing to a species.

Greenhouse gas troubles already here

Lisa Haderlein — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:34:00 GMT

Tim Flannery, Australian climate-change expert, recently told the Australian media that the upcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will state that greenhouse gases have already reached a level that will pose great risk for the planet. Previously, the IPCC had estimated that these levels would not be reached for about another decade.

The changes can be traced directly to human-related sources as industrial expansion proceeds at a high rate of growth, particularly in China and other Asian nations.

Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

Lisa Haderlein — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:18:00 GMT

Well, Al Gore just took a seat next to former President Jimmy Carter, Desond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, the Quakers, Martin Luther King Jr, and Reforestation Activist/Advocate Wangari Maathai (among many others) in receiving the Nobel Peace Prize!

Al Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will share this year's Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

The Nobel committee felt that Mr. Gore is "the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted" to solve the climate crisis.

It is heartening to see this recent trend of recognizing people who are taking action to tackle ecological threats to the health and welfare of this planet, in addition to recognizing those working on issues of a more obviously "peace/not war" variety. The facts are that Global Warming has the potential to cause great strife world wide as some countries - particularly those low-lying island nations - will be inundated and obliterated. It is not hard to imagine the political turbulence and violence as people seek refuge - even seek new homelands.

Thank you President-by-the-popular-vote Gore!

Food Footprint

Lisa Haderlein — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:47:00 GMT

My brother sent me an article from FT.com, website of London's Financial Times.

The article's about some companies in Britain that are going to start adding "grams of CO2" to food labels to indicate approximately how much carbon dioxide the production of the item generated.

Well, Cadbury is one of the companies mentioned in the article, and I just have to mention that Tom's favorite candy in the whole world is Cadbury's Dairy Milk chocolate bars!

Quoting from the article: "Many of these companies are working with the UK government-funded Carbon Trust, which has helped to develop certain methodologies for measuring the carbon that went into manufacture. The Carbon Trust says more than 150 companies have approached it about using the labels.

"Mr Murray says the process takes several months for the first product or service, but faster to roll out subsequently to other products. Companies have to scrutinise factors such as their electricity usage, their transport, heating, their use of materials, and any greenhouse gases produced by chemical processes in their manufacturing.

"The cost of the process varies widely from one company to another, from several thousand pounds to £10,000 or more. Undertaking such a review can be beneficial, Mr Murray reports: companies can find and solve inefficiencies in their supply chain, such as cutting their energy use. He estimates most companies could shave at least 20 per cent from their energy bills alone without major changes."

Imagine that, companies could actually cut their energy use just be going through the process of really understanding the energy consumed during the manufacturing process!

So far it is just starting in Britain, but with any luck, it will spread throughout the planet, and become ubiquitous, like the nutrition labels we see here.

I can see my thought process now: Hmm, should I get a Kit-Kat or a Snickers bar? Let me see, which has more calories? Now, which produced more CO2? Decisions, decisions!

Wind Power for Home

Lisa Haderlein — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:02:00 GMT

The other day, a friend told me about something called a WindSpire wind turbine for home installation. The turbine generates about 1 kilowatt hour of energy a day - that is about 1/3 to 1/4 of the electricity we use daily. Also, it includes an inverter that will allow us to reverse the flow back to ComEd when it is generating energy we aren't using (like when we are not at home).

It's basically a cylindar that's 3 feet tall, 2 feet wide, and 30 feet tall. Now, that may sound very tall, but on our lot, I think it could work. The company we contacted is called Mariah Power in Nevada. They will be starting to install these systems this fall.

(This is NOT our property! This is from the company's website.)

Our property slopes to the back, so the garage is in the basement. Also, the house is tall - not large, but tall. Two stories with an attic that you can stand up in. We also have several old, tall trees on the parcel, so I think we could get away with a tall pole-like thing. The units are quiet - about 25 decibels at 5 feet away.

The pay-back on energy savings is 20 years (they cost about $4,000 and another $1,000 to install). I'm going to research the tax credits that go along with it. Also, I'll look into the City codes to make sure we can get a permit.

Oil & Natural Gas Industry Radio Ads

Lisa Haderlein — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:26:00 GMT

I'm in Denver, using the hotel's clock radio to wake me up in the morning. The station it is set to is an AM station -mostly because it comes in clearly, gives me the weather and news.

What it has also given me the last two mornings is a commercial from the oil & gas industries asking people to contact Congress and tell them not to go back to the failed energy policies of the 1970's - raising the spectre of long lines at gas pumps because of rationing and price controls. The ad basically says that America is strong because of the use of oil & natural gas.

I'd like to run an ad saying that America will be stronger when it achieves energy independence by using our ingenuity and independent spirit to develop and implement the world's most effective alternative energy system that is clean, reliable and cost-effective.

Sigh.

LTA Rally off-setting carbon

Lisa Haderlein — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:10:00 GMT

I am attending the Land Trust Alliance's Rally - a conference for about 2000 people working for land conservation organizations across the United States. For the first time, the conference is "carbon neutral," meaning that they bought carbon credits through a group called Native Energy.

I mentioned this at the workshop I was at today, and while a couple of people were generally aware of the idea, I was the only person (of fifteen in the room) who had actually read the info the LTA had about their decision, or followed up to find out about Native Energy.

It was at that moment that I realized how freakishly obsessed I am with this whole topic. Here I am with a group of people who in the grand scheme of things are more like me than probably 95% of people on the planet, and I'm still the only one who was curious enough about the reference to Rally being "carbon neutral" to explore the subject a little further.

I mean, come on, I kept correcting people today when they would say "climate change" - I would tell them that was the compromise term and that the correct term is global warming.

Sigh. It isn't easy being me...

Hotels and global warming

Lisa Haderlein — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:17:00 GMT

I'm staying in a hotel for five nights this week. I purchased my TerraPass to cover the air travel, but now I am very aware of how much energy my stay in this hotel is using!

Some hotels have a policy whereby if you want to reuse your towels from one day to the next, you simply hang the towels up - if they actually need to be washed, leave them on the floor. This hotel doesn't have such a policy.

Overall, I was surprised at how little information I was able to find on this topic. I was hoping for articles about how much CO2 is released from all the towels & sheets that are washed at hotels around the world every day, but I didn't find anything.

I did find a website for a group called Sustainable Travel International that works with the hospitality industry to help facilities work on carbon-offsets through a "green tag" program (that is basically a system for buying offsets (tags) equivalent to the CO2 generated).

There is an article in Executive Travel magazine about Virgin Airlines and a couple of other notable efforts to cut CO2 from travel, but it's pretty short. A USA Today article from May that mentions one travel industry group that is going to work to cut travel-related emissions (from airlines, hotels, and cruises), but it didn't sound like they were doing anything yet. And, there is a great case study on the energy star website about Hilton Hotel's efforts which are pretty impressive.

Hilton's efforts are saving money, too. For instance: One hotel is saving almost $270,000 per year in energy costs after the installation of digital thermostats that monitor room occupancy and automatically adjust the temperature when occupants enter (or exit) a room. CFLs are standard, insulation has been tightened, and housekeeping staff have been educated about the things they can do to cut energy use.

Doubletree Hotel in Portland Oregon is doing a lot to "green" their operation, including the elimination of the shuttle to and from the airport, in favor of encouraging guests to use the City's light rail system instead! They are partnering with The Climate Trust on the effort. A website explains more.

NW Herald Climate Challenge

Lisa Haderlein — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:56:00 GMT

Our local newspaper, the Northwest Herald, is running a "climate challenge" for the month of October. They kicked it off today. Visit www.nwherald.com/climatechallenge to participate. You can take a pledge where you commit to taking certain actions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

For instance, buy a 3-pack of compact flourescent light bulbs (cfl's), install one, and give two away! Ask the folks you gave the two bulbs to to do the same.

Each incandescent bulb that is replaced with a cfl results in the elimination of about 100 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions each year. There are 300,000+ people in McHenry County. If every one of them installed just one cfl, that would mean 30,000,000 pounds less CO2 released! That's a lot of CO2. Plus, the bulbs use about 1/5th the energy of incandescents, so the household electric bill is cut too.

Rake, don't blow!

Lisa Haderlein — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 21:34:00 GMT

It's the time of year (in the northern hemisphere) when trees lose their leaves, and people have to figure out what to do with all that crunchy brown biomass!

A couple of ideas:

- keep in mind that using a gasoline-powered leaf blower for one hour releases as much air pollution (and CO2) as driving a car for 100 miles. (Source: American Lung Association) If you have to use a leaf blower, choose an electric one. Even better though is to pull out the rake, and rake away! If done correctly, the raking shouldn't leave you with a sore back, but will be a good cardio workout (and, let's face it, we could all use a bit more exercise!).

- composting at home will save all of the energy costs to collect and transport the leaves to a (sometimes) distant commercial composting facility.

Note: We compost some of the leaves that fall, and leave many of them in the garden beds to decompose, but for a yard our size, we have too many leaves to manage all of them on-site, so we do a lot of bagging, or at the height of leaf-raking season, in our community, people can rake their leaves to the curb and a big vacuum comes along to suck up the piles of leaves.

Composting is actually one of the easiest and most gratifying things a person can do in their garden! In its simplest form, composting means putting the yard waste into a pile, and leaving it long enough so that it decomposes.

I found a nice explanation of composting do's & don't's at a website called compostguide.com.

For those who are energetic, they can stir the pile, and work to have a good mix of green and brown items (short-hand for wet & dry).

For those who do not have a lot of space, there are self-contained compost bins available - there is often a lid on the top, and a portal at the bottom. Garden and kitchen waste goes in the top, and eventually is removed from the bottom as compost. Or, sometimes they are set up as a tumbler because mixing the compost materials will help them break down faster.

A pile that is about as tall as it is wide - 3 feet by 3 feet - seems manageable. The pile will "shrink" as materials decompose into a rich humus material, so there is soon more room on the pile for more yard waste. In general, large materials take longer to break down than smaller materials, and woody items will take a very long time to decompose.

Kitchen scraps do great in the compost pile - even egg shells, corn cobs, and watermelon rinds. The only things to avoid are animal and dairy products.

One composting no-no I can pass along from years of just throwing stuff onto the compost pile is that you never want to put too much grass clippings on the pile without mixing them in. They do not decompose very well, and instead end up creating a thick, slimy, smelly layer in the pile.

It can take 3 to 12 months for a compost pile to yield humus. When you want to check, just dig some material out from the bottom of the pile - if it looks like rich soil, it's ready. If it still have lots of plant materials visible, it needs to "cook" a bit longer.

Use the humus as a soil amendment. Mix it into your vegetable and flower beds. The humus is nutrient rich and full of organic material that helps the soil to retain moisture. There is more information available through the EPA website.

UN Climate Summit & Canada's Oil Sands

Lisa Haderlein — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:37:00 GMT

The United Nations is holding a summit with more than 80 countries participating. If you recall, the UN headquarters is in New York City, which is in the United States. The US President is not participating in the summit, but California's Governator Schwartzenegger is. California is the world's 5th lrgest economy, so I guess that makes sense.

Bush is holding his own gathering later in the week - presumably to discuss his "stick-your-head-in-the-sand" strategy to dealing with global warming. And when we say "sand," we are of course refering to the vast oil sand fields in Alberta Canada where oil companies are pulling oil out of the sand...

Canada's oil sands region is considered second only to Saudia Arabian oil reserves. The problem is, that instead of setting up wells and drawing the oil up from underground, the oil is obtained by digging up the land and then wringing the oil out of the sandy soil.

So why is this info on my global warming blog. Well, there was a piece on 60 Minutes last year about the project. Quoting from their story: "Creating energy from oil sands requires so much energy that the oil companies wind up spiking greenhouse gas emissions.

"'And they do it in volumes that exceed any other production of oil crude anywhere on the planet,' says Elizabeth May, the director of the Sierra Club of Canada.

"She takes issue not only with what the oil sands are doing to the atmosphere, but to the land. The oil companies, environmentalists say, are digging up an entire province. Take a helicopter ride over the mines and you’ll think you’re flying over the moon after a moonquake."

And this from the Wall Street Journal: "In northern Alberta, the oil-sands boom is remaking the landscape. The mining operations have clear-cut thousands of acres of trees and dug 200-foot-deep pits. The region is dotted with large man-made lakes filled with leftover waste from the mining operations. To chase off migratory birds, propane cannons go off at random intervals and scarecrows stand guard on floating barrels."

There is a short narrated photo journal at the Washington Post that explains the economics of mining oil sand.

Aleutian Islanders Don't Lie either

Lisa Haderlein — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:44:00 GMT

There was a heart wrenching story yesterday about Aleutian islanders on National Public Radio. For centuries, the residents of this remote area in the Bering sea off the eastern coast of Siberia (but actually part of the US) have had a comfortable subsistence life. About 1400 people live on St. Lawrence Island. They hunt whales, walrus, seals, but the pack ice (thick ice that builds up over several years) they have counted on to bring the sea animals closer in to the island has not been observed for eight years. The ice now is much thinner and therefore more dangerous. It is also arriving much later in the year than it once did. In 2006, ice did not come until December, when just 20 years ago, it came regularly in August or September when kids were heading back to school.

This is real - and it isn't some hoax. Local people have been recording the weather and sea changes for decades - after all, the hunt is their livelihood, and the success of the hunt depends on understanding the sea.

And the sea has changed, and it will keep on changing, and these islanders who have survived in this place for about 2,000 years will have to adapt rapidly, or like many of their young people who kill themselves (the island has the highest suicide rate in Alaska), the entire culture may die.

More on the Denyers

Lisa Haderlein — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:26:00 GMT

One of the favorites tools of the global warming denyers in Washington DC is a novelist (writer of fictional "thrillers"), Michael Crichton. Author of Jurassic Park & The Andromeda Strain (which was my favorite sci-fi movie when I was a kid).

I won't even cite the name of his most recent novel that uses global warming as a plot device. But, there are those in Congress and the White House who are citing it as support for their views that the science is still out on global warming.

Think about it. This guy may be a good writer, but his novels are works of fiction, and just like there is no island out there where mad scientists are cloning dinosaurs to create some tourist attraction, the things that the author implies in his latest work of fiction, are not true either. For instance, he implies that there are evil environmentalists conspiring to cause an earthquake and tsunami to bolster their bogus case about global warming. Yes, and there are mad scientists cloning dinosaurs that just might turn into Godzilla and destroy New York City.

For the record, I have not read the novel, nor do I plan on reading it. I am sure it is like his others - well written, suspenseful, and probably formulaic (meaning following the same basic plot line as his other novels). That's not a bad thing - it's easy, entertaining reading for many.

But, to me, the fact that he abuses the scientific truth about global warming - a dead serious issue - to sell more books, and the fact that he has testified before Congress to say that he does not believe the science is there to support all the calls for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is irresponsible. And it shows how stupid some of our elected "leaders" are, for acting as PR people for a novelist. They are helping him sell more books - no crime in that, but when it is at the expense of rational, science-based debate about a topic that will have devastating consequences for hundreds of millions of people, it is just plain reckless.

You can read more about this issue at the website ClimateProgress.org.

Low Carbon Diet, Chapter 9: Water Heaters

Lisa Haderlein — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:59:00 GMT

Think about your hot water heater. It sits there, making sure you have hot water when you need it, and most of the time it is unused. Yet, used or not, it heats the water during the day, because it never know when you are going to turn on the hot water tap!

This constant heating of the water uses energy. Thus, the warmer you set the thermostat on your hot water heater, the more energy it will use to keep the water warm. When choosing the temperature for your water heater, consider this: you don't want the water to scald you when you turn on the hot water tap!

For years, I have run the hot water for my morning shower, turning the hot and cold taps to get the right temperature for my shower. How silly! The hot was always so hot that I had to add a lot of cold water to even be able to run my finger comfortably under the stream of water coming out of the faucet!

Well, now the water heater thermostat is set somewhere between low and medium, which puts the temperature at about 120 degrees. Newer water heaters have an actual temperature shown on the dial, so you can select the temperature you desire. And, what you are likely to find is that 120 degrees still feels hot!

Our body temperature is around 98.6 degrees, so anything warmer than that will feel warm, and cooler than that will feel cold.

In addition to reducing the temperature setting, consider turning the water heater off when you are on vacation. Does your empty house need a ready supply of hot water at a moment's notice?

If you have an electric water heater, consider adding an insulating blanket, and for any water heater, try insulating the first several feet of pipes leaving the heater. There are foam sleeves made for this purpose.

Turning down the temperature will save about 150 pounds of CO2 a year, and adding a blanket and hot water pipe sleeves will save another 175 pounds of CO2.

Now, if you want to virtually eliminate the CO2 created by your water heater, look into installing a solar water heater! And while the book doesn't mention this, I would like to add that as an alternative, consider installing a "tankless" (on-demand) water heater that only heats the water when you need it!

More from "Hell and High Water"

Lisa Haderlein — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:42:00 GMT

Author Romm talks about the Denyers and Delayers who have worked systematically to discredit the global warming issue. The approach has basically included several tactics:

- Discredit the messenger. Reputable US Government scientists have lost their jobs for speaking the facts related to global warming!

- Confuse the debate. Point out tangential facts, or minor errors as a way to discredit the science. Climate Science Watch is a website devoted to holding public officials accontable for using Climate science accurately to inform public debate, rather than abusing facts to promote political agendas.

- Change the language used.

The last one really irritates me. This is the effort to shift the language to say "Global Climate Change" rather than Global Warming. Climate Change is less frightening to people and thus it inspires less action. Climate change could be moving from Vermont to Florida. Global warming is clearly Vermont having weather like Florida!

It occurs to me that our country has been through this type of dishonest debate before.

Cigarettes.

The Tobacco industry and their apologists waged a decades long-campaign to convince people that cigarette smoking was a sexy thing without health consequences. Well, we know now that this was a lie, and millions of people have died as a result, but at least most of those people died because of the choices they made. I think the Global Warming issue is more akin to second hand smoke - the cigarette smoke that kills people who never actually smoke a cigarette themselves. This is why many communities are banning cigarette smoking in public places. (Including the State of Illinois effective January 1, 2008!)

Diseased lung on left, healthy lung on right!

Naturally, since it was his decades of smoking (and the resulting emphysema) that ultimately killed my dad, this is a topic that I have thought about over the years.

The tobacco lobby tried to discredit the scientists who spoke out about the dangers of cigarette smoking, and hired their own "scientists" (basically, folks with scientific credentials who could be bought because they had no scruples, or perhaps were just plain incompetent).

Why are Americans so willing to fall for this junk?