Blogs

What is HCCI?

Benjamin Jones — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:50:59 PDT

Has GM struck gold, 30 years later?

HCCI, which stands for Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition, is currently under development at General Motors. Under the watch of Paul Najt, who worked on the technology during his days as a PhD researcher, HCCI is coming to the forefront of GMâs work on eco-friendly gasoline technology.

The technology was put on the shelf years ago, but has made a comeback with several important improvements and a promise from GM to make it viable for use in passenger vehicles in the near future.

I recently had a chance to try out this new technology in a working Saturn Aura. You can check out my post-ride review of the technology. But right now we're going to dive in and talk about exactly what HICCI is and how it works.

What is HCCI?
At its most basic level, HCCI combines the best properties of diesel and gasoline engines into one.

Gasoline engines use spark ignition, whereas diesels are compression ignition, meaning that instead of using spark plugs to ignite the air-fuel mixture within the cylinder they use the pressure of the piston to compress the mixture, creating heat and ignition.

Because compression ignition is inherently more efficient, diesel engines are predisposed to good fuel economy, but at the cost of high NOx emissions. Gasoline engines, on the other hand, are less fuel efficient, but are also much cleaner in terms of NOx emissions.

HCCI partially bridges this gap by creating a gasoline engine where compression ignition is possible. This gives the engine both the operation and feel of a diesel, but without many of the associated pollution problems.

GM was careful to say, however, that it is not planning on a convergence between diesel and gasoline engines, but rather that it is working to make each as efficient as possible, since both are already well-suited for particular modes of operation (i.e., diesels make better large trucks, but gasoline engines are a better fit for sedans).

There are several new tech advances that have come together to produce the modern, 4-cylinder, 2.2-liter, 180 HP engine that I test drove. This includes direction injection, a dual electrical cam phaser (as opposed to hydraulic), 2-step valve lift, and combustion pressure sensors. The combustion pressure sensors are extremely important because they allow the engine to make minute adjustments on the fly, which is necessary because HCCI is extremely sensitive to operating conditions. These combustion pressure sensors have fallen in price rapidly, part of what makes an HCCI engine more commercially viable now compared to even a dozen years ago.

Another important advance is the ability to run in HCCI-mode in low-load and idle conditions. The biggest thing making diesel and HCCI-equipped gasoline technologies different is that HCCI engines are not always using compression ignition. Because of noise, vibration, and technical issues, engines can only operate in HCCI-mode in low-load situations.

This range has recently been improved, allowing HCCI operation in idle as well, but the Aura I test drove could only maintain HCCI up to about 55 mph, at which point it would switch back to standard ignition (SI) mode. Similarly, the Aura would enter SI mode during brisk and usually stayed in HCCI-mode when cruising.

Why HCCI?
Part of the excitement over HCCI technology is that it offers very little negatives for all the positives that are promised. Of course, not all promises and expectations are likely to be met, but for now the technology seems like one of the best things GM has to offer.

As I already mentioned, the HCCI-equipped engine that I test drove was able to cram 180 HP into a (relatively) small, 4-cylinder, 2.2-liter form factor. Because HCCI is inherently more efficient, it not only results in improved fuel economy, but also increased power output.

As far as fuel economy is concerned, there likely have not been any real-world or EPA-like tests done, but GM is quoting a modest 15% increase in gas mileage. I say modest not because Iâm unimpressed with the number, but because new technologies often come with wild claims about how quickly they will solve the worldâs problems, and this does not seem to be the case here.

On top of the improved efficiency, HCCI-mode operates at a lower temperature than diesel, below the range where harmful NOx pollutants are created, making the engine extremely low-emission. Emissions are reduced across the board when in HCCI-mode compared to other diesel and gasoline engines. HCCI-mode is also possible with ethanol blends up to E85, making the engine fit in well with GMâs near-term plan for increased E85 use.

Perhaps the most salient upside of HCCI technology is the cost / benefit ratio it offers. Though GM isnât talking specifics yet, I was told that it would be cheaper than current hybrid and diesel technology, putting it within range of the average consumer and positioning it to make the largest impact on fuel consumption and air pollution.

Definitely exciting technology to watch. Hop on over to my test-drive review to learn more on how it performs in the real world.

Your windows could soon clean themselves

Peg Fong — Mon, 12 May 2008 02:29:02 PDT

Donât do windows? Now thereâs an eco-friendly way to not clean as often. A Denmark company has a new cleaning product called ShineOn that keeps windows free from dirt and grime for up to two years.

ShineOn is a thin coating developed using nanotechnology by SCF Technologies. The coating chemically bonds with glass to create a layer that uses the sunâs energy to âburnâ loose dirt that gathers on the glass and loosen it from the surface. The dirt is then washed away from the window by rain.

The coating, which contains titanium dioxide, is applied in two stages with windows prepared with a special fluid to remove all possible contaminants. ShineOn is then polished onto the window with a cloth.

Though other dirt-burning coatings have been developed in the past, this is the first that can be applied to existing windows, making retrofits possible without replacing and trashing millions of panes of glass.

The product makes sense now for commercial use even though the initial application is expensive. The eventual savings are tremendous when you consider how much money is regularly spent on cleaning towers that are surfaced almost entirely in glass.

Environmental benefits will come from using less detergents. In a typical modern office building, windows are cleaned up to 100 times over two years.

Now if only someone will discover an energy-free way to fold laundry.

Full press release from SCF Technologies

Image via Swisscan on Flickr

New nanomaterial doubles CO2 storage

Jozef Winter — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:42:08 PDT

As much as we reduce our current output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it has become apparent that these efforts, while absolutely needed, will only mitigate the effects of global warming, making carbon sequestration as necessary tool in our fight against climate change.

Unfortunately, many popular ideas on how exactly to sequester the CO2 are simply not practical, though some new ones are quite promising. A new team of French researchers, led by GÃ©rard FÃ©rey at the University of Versailles, have decided to skip the pumping of CO2 underground and focus their efforts on nanotechnology, breaking a record in the process.

Their new material, dubbed MIL-101, has been officially called âthe best carbon sequestration materialâ bar none. 1m³ is capable of holding 400m³ of gas, compared to the 200m³ that the best commercially available technology can provide.

MIL-101, also known as chromium terephthalate, can accomplish this because its structure is only 2.9 to 3.4 nanometers thick, giving the substance a surface area of over 6000m² per single gram. The structure is also porous, which allows the small CO² molecules to become trapped, making it ideal for carbon capture directly from power plants, tailpipes, and smokestacks.

The technology also holds great promise for the storage of methane and hydrogen gas, making it a possible candidate for fuel storage in fuel-cell powered vehicles.

via Ecolectic, Physorg, and CRNS (if you can read French)

The asthma and car connection

Mel Peffers — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:23:22 PDT

This post is by Mel Peffers, a project manager in the Living Cities program at Environmental Defense Fund.

May 6th was World Asthma Day. Since car exhaust can lead to asthma as well as global warming, we thought it would be a good time to highlight the importance of not idling your car or truck engine.

What makes idling especially bad for health is that drivers tend to idle in gathering places -- by sidewalks, schools, playgrounds, homes, and offices. Breathing in pollution close to the source is more dangerous than farther away.

Take a look at the evidence.

Tailpipe exhaust may cause asthma

Tailpipe exhaust from both gasoline- and diesel-burning vehicles contains the pollutants that produce ozone when combined with sunlight and heat. Ozone occurs mostlyÂ during the summer months. A warming planet means more hot days and thus more ozone.

Breathing in ozone irritates and inflames your lungs, and repeated exposure can reduce lung function. Thereâs a lot of evidence that ozone makes asthma worse.

But the Childrenâs Health Study in California found evidence that ozone causes asthma. The study also found that children can suffer irreversible lung damage as adults from breathing smog.

On top of that, diesel exhaust contains particulate matter (soot). This has long been known to cause a variety of health problems, including aggravated asthma (see CARB report on health effects [PDF]).

As with ozone, there is evidence that diesel exhaust particles may cause asthma and not just worsen it.

California kids arenât the only ones to suffer from tailpipe-induced asthma. A 2005 NYU Medical Center study showed that asthma symptoms among children in the South Bronx doubled on high-traffic days.

Conversely, reducing ozone can improve asthma rates. During the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, the city closed downtown to private cars for 17 days. During this time, daily peak ozone levels dropped more than a quarter and hospitalizations for asthma fell by almost one-fifth.

Fight global warming, save money

Thereâs no reason to idle your vehicle engine. As I explained in a previous post:

Todayâs engines donât need a warm-up period.
If youâre stopped for more than 10 seconds, your car uses more gasoline to idle than to restart.

Many cities, including New York, have laws against idling, but theyâre rarely enforced. We need better enforcement, but we can make a difference with our own actions and behavior.

So in honor of World Asthma Day, switch off that idling engine. Youâll curb global warming pollution, save money on gasoline, and help everyone to breathe better.

Landfill gas will fuel garbage trucks

Peg Fong — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:12:47 PDT

Turning garbage into gold isn't going to happen anytime soon, but perhaps all that waste doesn't need to go ... waste. Landfill gas, which comes from the natural decomposition of organic waste, can be purified and liquefied into clean fuel.

A new joint venture between North America's largest waste management company, Waste Management, and Linde, a leading gases and engineering company, is hoping to "close the loop" by producing fuel from garbage and using it to power garbage trucks.

The companies will construct a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility at the Altamont Landfill near Livermore in California that (when it begins operation next year) could produce up to 13,000 gallons a day of LNG.

That gas will be used to fuel the collection trucks. Natural gas is already the cleanest burning fuel available for Waste Management trucks. Additionally, collecting methane for burning has an overall positive effect on global warming, because methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

Linde North America estimates that capturing and reusing landfill gas could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30,000 tonnes per year.The LNG produced from the Altamont landfill gas will be a virtually zero-carbon transportation fuel and eventually lead to more facilities that can produce more than 200 million gallons of clean transportation each year from the garbage in California's landfills.

There's a lot of garbage out there and any way it can be re-used instead of just letting it rot away in landfills is a great thing.

Waste is a terrible thing to waste.

Via TreeHugger

Plug-ins beat your average car

Benjamin Jones — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:03:06 PDT

Recently, as excitement for alternative vehicles like electrics has grown, so has criticism saying that electric vehicles wonât be any better because they just shift the burden of pollution from the car to the power plant.

Whatâs worse, some say, is that this shift could overburden an already ailing power system and cause more coal plants to be built.Â

But the above graph put together by Technology Review (registration required) shows that just comparing plug-ins with each other using different power sources, in almost every case, the result is better than standard hybrids, and all cases are better than conventional gasoline-burning engines.

Similarly, an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study shows that even if newer plug-ins will require energy from the grid, they will most likely be charging at night, when there is little demand for electricity. The extra use from plug-ins might actually be helpful to spread out peaks and dips in production and usage.

The most important thing to remember, however, is that because plug-ins do shift the burden from each individual car to the power grid, the overall system becomes easier to regulate and easier to influence as more sustainable power-generation technologies become available.

Every time a new wind generator goes up and a coal plant goes offline, your plug-in will become just that much cleaner. On the other hand, gasoline engines will just grow more inefficient and polluting with time.

We've come a long way, baby

Trystan L. Bass — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:43:56 PDT

Earth Day is like the environmentalist's Christmas, New Years, Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, and Fourth of July wrapped up in one.

Some may poo-poo Earth Day as having lost its true meaning, but like Charlie Brown, we can always rediscover the heart and soul of the day.

Stripped of the recent commercialism, the whole point of this day has always been to bring attention to our environment and what we need to do to clean it up.

So what better time than Earth Day 2008 to look at how far we've come in the past 12 months, and to think about what we can do to make our planet a cleaner place in the future.

Top five signs we're on the right track

Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize -- Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were recognized for their work to spread the word about man-made climate change.

The Nobel Committee made clear the devastating effect global warming will have on human lives and security. For peace in our times, we have to reverse climate change. And thanks to Mr. Gore's work, millions of people are aware of this.

Prius sales topped 1 million -- The icon for green driving, Toyota's Prius hybrid car, hit a million cars sold worldwide in June 2007. Over half of those cars are zipping around the U.S.

The Prius is Silicon Valley's car of choice -- as evidenced by the dozens in Yahoo!'s own parking lot (and my own driveway). Other carmakers are jumping on the hybrid bandwagon every model year.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 signed into law -- This U.S. legislation, while far from perfect, has huge potential to increase our country's energy efficiency.

It raises standard gas mileage for cars and light trucks (aka SUVs) for the first time ages to 35 mpg by 2020. And this act bans the sale of most incandescent lightbulbs by 2014. We should see more Energy Star-rated appliances too.

The Vatican called pollution a sin -- When even the Catholic Church is going green, you know the message has spread. Church official Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti said, "You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming, or coveting your neighbor's wife, but also by ruining the environment."

Rev. John Wauck from Rome's Pontifical University of the Holy Cross added that protecting the environment is implied in the Bible's Book of Genesis. Pollution is a variation on the mortal sin of gluttony or selfishness.

Wal-Mart went green -- Surprisingly, the world's biggest retailer has jumped on the sustainability bandwagon. How much of this is green-washing is debatable, but it's true that the mega-store has made some big eco-friendly efforts.

Wal-Mart sold more than 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs in 2007, introduced fair-trade certified coffee in April 2008, and buys 10 million pounds of organic cotton annually.

Considering the company expects 90% of American households will shop at its stores this year, I think it's pretty important that Wal-Mart is doing something green.

We're more aware of climate change than ever before. We know something about how our choices in energy use, travel, and shopping affect the planet and our own communities. Let's pat ourselves on the back... then let's get back to work.

Top five things still we need to work on

Drive less, carpool more, use public transit -- Gas is climbing to $4 a gallon, so really, who wants to drive more anyway? If the nasty emissions don't make you want to share the ride or get out of the car entirely, the cost should.

Start small by carpooling to work a couple days a week. This really isn't that hard for most people, since statistically our commutes aren't long in distance. It's the time spent sitting in traffic that stretches our workday -- but if your city has carpool lanes, you'll zip to the office and back home easily.

Be a conscious consumer, reduce the stuff you buy -- The first step in "reduce, reuse, recycle" is often forgotten, but it's the most important one. The less junk we buy, the less we need to reuse or recycle. We're nipping the problem in the bud.

Do I really need the latest cell phone when I renew my plan? No, even if the company is giving it to me free. The old phone works fine, so why add it to the landfill?

Now personally, I love fashion, but when I feel like having new clothes, I hit the thrift store or look for vintage garb on eBay. At least then I'm not requiring new resources to be used simply for my pleasure, plus I'm keeping stuff out of the garbage.

You don't have to abandon all your possessions and live off the grid, but we can all think a bit more carefully about what we do buy, consider where it comes from, and what we'll do with it after we're finished with it.

Avoid toxic plastics -- We're starting to learn that some very common plastics leach toxic chemicals into our bodies, and these chemicals have been linked to cancer, reproductive problems, and other health dangers.

Two biggies to watch out for are Bisphenol A (also known as BPA) and phthalates. BPA is often found in plastic water bottles and baby bottles -- these containers usually have a #7 in the 'chasing arrow' symbol on the bottom. Phthalates are found in PVC and soft vinyl goods plus in personal-care products like shampoos and lotions. Look for any ingredient with "-phthalate" in the name.

Conserve water -- According to the United Nations, 41% of the world's population lacks access to clean water. The U.S. southeast was hit by a devastating drought last year, and global climate change will continue to screw with weather patterns.

It's always wise to conserve the water we have, and it's easy too. Fix leaks around the house, install a low-flow showerhead, consider drought-resistant landscaping, heck, even let it mellow if it's yellow. I've heard some famous people even do that.

Tell elected officials the environment matters to you (and vote accordingly) -- Our individual actions help a lot. But to make the biggest impact possible, we need our government to act.

Legislation ensures that corporations don't pollute the skies and oceans or use up all our natural resources. Our government can influence other countries to clean up their acts too.

So remind your representatives at the state and federal level that you care about our environment and want them to act with the planet in mind. And in November, when you have a chance to vote for a new president, consider the candidates' views on climate change too.

Inside 'The Story of Stuff'

Trystan L. Bass — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:35:52 PDT

If you're like most Americans, you have a lot of stuff. Jeans, MP3 players, kitchen gadgets, DVDs, shoes, TVs, kids' toys, T-shirts, cell phones, sports equipment ... you know, stuff.

We buy it all the time, in stores and online. We're the shopping-ist country on the planet. And our government wants us to shop more to boost the economy -- that's why some of us are getting rebate checks in May. Stores can't wait to help us spend that money too.

While we see the shiny, new gadgets in our hands and the growing clutter in our homes, what we don't see is the series of events that created that stuff and brought it to us. Sustainability expert Annie Leonard has traveled to over 30 countries and looked at factories and dumps. She's investigated the waste we export back to the Third World.

All this experience lead her to create the short film The Story of Stuff, which she launched online in December 2007.

With clever animations and straightforward talk, Leonard makes huge economic concepts approachable. She explains how the things we buy in the store are made from often-toxic chemicals and how factories use up natural resources and harm local communities. Leonard even points out that America's consumer culture is a relatively new phenomenon, created by post-World-War-II economists.

When I interviewed Leonard recently, she admitted that the movie happened because, "I realized I was too deep into this that I couldn't talk about it like normal people talk about it." Fellow activists challenged her to explain these issues so that they could understand her and maybe even so the rest of the world could too.

But Leonard says, "I was not making it to convert anyone, and I was not making it for the general public who was totally new to these ideas. I was making it for my peers who were familiar with these ideas but who didn't see the connections and the systemic nature of the problems."

Still, in four months on the Web, the movie topped 2.5 million views, and in March, it won the SXSW Interactive Award as an educational resource.

She's been surprised by the interest the film's received. Leonard put it online, "because we wanted to make it free. We're not doing it to make money. And we never expected that many people to watch it!"

In response to the buzz, she's also made DVDs available to those without high-speed net access. "We've distributed 6,000 DVDs to Third World countries, to India, China, Russia, Taiwan, and places are using them in their outreach programs," Leonard notes. "Public schools in the U.S., Native American reservations, churches have all asked for DVDs. We give discounts to anyone who asks." Sponsors like Ben & Jerry's have helped her small team support these efforts.

While the film doesn't prescribe specific actions to solve the problems it exposes, Leonard does suggest that we tackle an area we feel strongly about.

"One of the things I think is so important is rebuilding our sense of communities and a sense of engagement," Leonard says. "I think our greatest sense of joy in our lives is from coming together around a shared interest, whether itâs a book club or getting a bike lane in your town."

To encourage this kind of involvement, each section of the movie has a tab at the top of the website with a "Learn More" link. For example, click on "Consumption" if you want a sampling of groups dedicated to helping consumers be more sustainable. Or check the full list of recommended resources.

Deeper involvement is key. She's a little critical of a '10 simple steps' approach to changing the world. "It's better to change the structure and system so that the default is the right thing," Leonard advocates.

"I think the individual actions are absolutely important, but we shouldn't confuse that with political actions," she continues. "We should always choose the least toxic, most socially responsible option possible. But not because that'll bring about change -- it simply brings our day-to-day actions into congruence with our real values."

The 'grumpies' who comment on the movie often say that "they get the problem, they get the personal cost, the cost to happiness, but they don't know how to unplug from the system," Leonard explains.

"People express concern that if we reduce our consumption how will it affect our economy?" she adds. "This is a valid concern. If we seriously transform our society, it'll involve a lot of hard work. We need to be intentional, strategic, and figure it out. Let's start planning ahead instead of kicking and screaming until the last second."

In this case, knowledge really is power. "The more we can see the connections between these issues," she says, "we can be more transformative, instead of tinkering at the margins."

'The Story of Stuff' is making those connections happen. Leonard has received more than 20,000 emails from people all over the world -- and the vast majority have been very positive. She may not have set out to change minds, but she is. One comment was from "an SUV-driving, die-hard Republican who emailed and had just never considered any of this."

Schools from elementary level through college are using the movie. A fourth-grader in the Midwest saw the film and emailed saying it was "awesome" with lots of smileys. An Oxford professor used it his class.

Watch the movie, and you may not look at your own stuff the same way again.

5 ways to turn CO2 into cash

Benjamin Jones — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:34:29 PDT

These days, many experts are saying that weâre not going to be able to stop climate change just by decreasing emissions. To dig our way out of this hole, they say, weâre actually going to need to take carbon dioxide out of the air.

The first instinct has been to bury the CO2. Just pump it into the earth and try and forget how ashamed we are of these massive quantities of CO2. But a new breed of entrepreneur has sprung up, saying "If we have this CO2, why don't we do something useful with it?"

Obviously, we've got to get rid of all that carbon, but if folks can make some money and lower the cost of sequestration while they're doing it ... then that's just icing on the cake.

So here are five of the ways in which people are hoping to make bank with the millions of tons of CO₂ that are pumped out of coal plants and into the atmosphere every day.

Feed it to algae, and then turn the algae to fuel
You may know that biofuels can be made from algae. You may also know that algae thrives on carbon dioxide. A company called GreenFuel Technologies has put two and two together, and is using captured CO₂ to grow algae, which will then be made into biofuels.

But this isn't the only company working on it. There are dozens of start-ups working to create different techniques and algal strains that will allow them to maximize carbon capture and minimize costs.

Earth2Tech recently had a writeup on 15 of the top algae biofuel startups. Of all of the techniques listed there, algae farming with CO₂ is probably the most mature technology, and the first fuel-producing plants are already going online.

And, of course, we don't have to worry about ever running out of a market for biofuels. As long as we're creating CO₂ by burning fuels, there will be a place to burn biofuels.

Turn it into plastic
Recently the American Chemical Society saw a proposal to use captured CO₂ to produce polycarbonate plastics, like those used in CDs and DVDs. The idea is to take carbon dioxide emissions, and instead of sequestering them in the ground, trap them in resilient products.

This approach makes sense because it relies largely on sequestering carbon in disposable products, like plastic forks and water bottles. So, basically, we'd be sequestering carbon every time we threw away plastic.

Landfill sequestration seems like a pretty wasteful way to go to me, but it's certainly better than the alternative. But even with the amount of disposable plastic we consume in the world, we would have plenty of CO₂ left over if all of it was turned to plastic.

Make sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
Joe David Jones, CEO of Skyonic, has created a process that captures CO₂ as it exits power plant smokestacks and mixes it with sodium hydroxide to form baking soda. This process, called SkyMine, also removes heavy metals and dangerous pollutants and coverts the CO₂ into sodium bicarbonate.

Baking soda has a variety of uses on the commercial market, and this process could help make carbon capture more economically viable. Even if the baking soda is not sold, because it is solid it is immensely easier to store it in old mines or landfills than it would be to sequester gaseous CO₂ beneath the ground.

The real question is whether the world can produce enough sodium hydroxide to keep the process going.

Calcium carbonate
A company called Carbon Sciences has a new process called GreenCarbon, which, at the base of things, turns carbon dioxide into useful stuff. The GreenCarbon process mixes the CO₂ with crushed calcium minerals, one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust.

The end result is calcium carbonate, an industrial chemical that's used in thousands of applications, from PVC to paper to toothpaste and, in its pure form, as wall board and chalk. Because calcium carbonate is used in just about everything, thereâs a huge market for it, and depending on the quality, it can sell for hundreds of dollars a ton.

The question remains, though ... is there enough of a market? The CEO of Carbon sciences says yes, but we're skeptical since a single coal plant could produce millions of tons of calcium carbonate per year.

Convert it directly into fuel
Sandia National Laboratories is working on creating fuel directly from CO₂ without any pesky biological intermediaries like algae. The carbon dioxide would be super-heated to around 1,200 C and mixed with water to create various hydrocarbons of the sort we're already burning in our cars. All of that heat, of course, is energetically expensive, but Sandia is hoping to use leftover heat from nuclear or utility-scale solar thermal power generating plants. The process basically reverses combustion, and is only economically viable if the energy can come from cheap, clean sources.

The good news is that it can be scaled up much more easily than algae production, which requires thousands of acres of space to soak up the CO₂ from one coal plant.

In conclusion
There's no one solution to this problem. We'll probably start out pumping most of it underground, while turning a good portion of it into fuel. But I expect that, in the next 20 years, when power producers start having to pay the true costs of releasing CO₂, techniques for creating useful products with that CO₂ will multiply.

Depending on where coal plants are and what resources they have around them, project planners will have to figure out what are the most economically viable things to do with the CO₂.

If there's a lot of calcium deposits around, they'll be creating calcium carbonate, but if there's a lot of sun and ample space, maybe algae farms will pop up around the power plant.

In any case, we'll see an entire economy spring up around actually using our societies primary waste product. And not only is that just good policy, it's a gigantic economic opportunity.

6,000 gal. of water to light a bulb?

Hank Green — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:31:30 PDT

We're used to calculating carbon efficiency, or how much CO2 is produced along with a unit of energy. But there's a lot more to the environmental equation than how much carbon gets produced. We've also got to consider things like heavy metals, particulate production, and habitat impacted.

Increasingly, another environmental concern is starting to pop up when considering power generation. Already, many parts of the world are experiencing serious fresh water shortages, and that isn't helped because many methods of generating power also consume massive amounts of water.

A recent study was published yesterday by researchers at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute quantifying a bunch of different factors in water use in the energy industry. Some of the figures are staggering.

Using America's current power mix, it takes up to 6,000 gallons of fresh water to keep a 60-watt lightbulb lit for 12 hours a day for a year. Most of this energy is consumed as a cooling fluid at power plants.

The most water-efficient power generating sources were wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric plants.Â Nuclear power plants, with their massive cooling towers, use the most water per watt produced.

The researchers were quick to point out that while biofuels were more carbon-efficient than fossil fuel alternatives like gasoline, they are far less water-efficient, already adding significantly to the world's water shortages.

Via Crave

Don't save your pennies

Hank Green — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:31:12 PDT

I know Coinstar provides a fantastic service, having availed myself of it several times. But I bet you don't think of it as an environmentally friendly one, do you?

The billions of coins sitting idle in American households right now represent a squandered resource, according to Coinstar's recent "Change For Our Earth" marketing campaign. The U.S. Mint prints coins from non-renewable resources to replace the coins that hide in our mason jars and couch cushions.

Putting those billions of coins back into circulation would substantially decrease mining, refining, and shipping. Coinstar even launched a calculator at "ChangeForOurEarth.com" to determine how much you can help the Earth by cashing in.

We know greenwashing when we see it, but this is ingenious. Coinstar hasn't changed anything about what it does ... just the message.

Still, I hope this will get people to turn their old money into usable money, and put change back into the system. Apparently it could have some fairly significant impacts.

Coinstar estimates that $10 billion in coins sit idle in American homes. If 15% of those coins were re-entered into circulation (preferably via Coinstar's automated counters, which will pinch a few pennies for themselves), this would save 82 million showers' worth of water and 12,000 cars' worth of CO₂ emissions.

Donating your earnings to Coinstar partner World Wildlife Fund will make you feel all the greener.

So go turn that change back into money. For the earth, for yourself, and for Coinstar.

The greenest way to die

Magnus Hølvold — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:21:38 PDT

We don't deal all that much with death on EcoGeek, but sometimes something comes along that captures our attention, interest and -- of course -- our morbid fascination. A way of processing corpses called resomation is one of those things. Veterinarians have been using a similar process for years now, but us humans are now finally getting in on the action.

Within a tank called a resomator, the body is immersed in a 1:21 solution of potash lye and water. Gas-powered steam generators build up pressure within the tank as the temperature rises up to around 170 degrees Celsius. Thanks to the pressure (and despite what the general news media would have you think) there is no boiling, only a chemical reaction that completely liquefies everything but the bone ash in our bodies. When the tank is opened, only the bone ash and any implants or prosthetics the person had remain.

Sounds pretty gruesome, eh? Why even do it, you may ask? Well, this is where our interest in this technology comes in.

Through talks with Sandy Sullivan,Â the founder of Resomation Ltd., I learned that an average cycle in this tank of three hours will consume around 90 kWh, while a cremation will consume 250 kWh. According to Mr. Sullivan, the total carbon footprint of a resomation is 18 times less than that of a cremation. Additionally, resomation is a 100% mercury-free process, something neither regular burial nor cremation can boast.

When the body has been fully liquefied, it has been separated into two main parts. The first is a bio-fluid that is basically a collection of all our building blocks: Salts, sugars, peptides, and amino acids. The nutrients in this liquid are still entirely intact and can be returned to the soil to help our plants grow.

The second is basically a "shadow" of your bones called bone ash, pure calcium phosphate. This can be used in horticulture, ceramics, and even as a raising agent! In other words, getting resomated allows you to fully return your body to the Earth without worrying about adding a bunch of unwanted stuff to the soil at the same time.

Like I said, any implants or prosthetics the person may have had are also left behind, and are in fact in pristine condition. With further sterilisation and repackaging, expensive prosthetics can be put back into use.

While what to do with these "leftovers" is still an open question, the folk at Resomation Ltd have considered donating them to third-world countries where such prosthetics would otherwise be completely unattainable.

So far, the process is only available in the United States, where more than 2,000 resomations have been performed so far, but the Glasgow-based company is only a year old, and Sullivan tells me that they are close to having the process specified as legal in the United Kingdom (bureaucracy at work!).

Many local authorities in the UK are having trouble taking care of their dead, what with the FBCA's regulations on mercury emissions. Additionally, several green groups are championing this tech all around the world.

Don't worry, you can still have a dignified ceremony that doesn't differ much from cremation. The body is placed in a quite ordinary coffin that is lined with a silk bag that seals to become an enclosed silk coffin within the resomator.

After the cycle, the soft bone ash can easily be powdered and put in an urn like you would after a cremation, with the added bonus that every single bit of ash is the body of the departed, not a mixture of whatever was in the furnace with the body.

I can even think of a few additions to the lowering of the ashes that would make the ceremony all the more meaningful, like fertilising the earth that surrounds our dearly departed's ashes with a vial containing their own bodily remains. One life gone, new life welcomed.

If you want to read more about the technology and the process, I suggest you check Resomation Ltd'.s official website or this very easy-to-read and accurate description of the process of resomation at Cremate Me.net.

Staggering video of our nation exhaling CO2

Hank Green — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:11:07 PDT

Scientists at Purdue University recently did an extremely detailed analysis of the emission of CO₂ in the United States. They included every sector: power generation, manufacturing, transportation, etc., and then they used advanced atmospheric models to track the gas.

It's part of a research project they're calling "Project Vulcan," presumably because Vulcans looking down at our planet would either be unimpressed by our technology or wonder how an entire planet could breathe.

The result is both staggering and unnerving. Watching our nation wake up in the morning in this way is just plain freaky. The CO₂ swells into the atmosphere, covering more of the nation hour by hour until folks get home and start relaxing more and consuming less.

I can proudly declare that my city in western Montana, in fact, remains completely unblemished by CO₂ emissions. Though, it's easy enough to spot the coal-fired power plant in south-east Montana that actually electrifies my house.

Via Wired Blogs

Trash-talk radio

Trystan L. Bass — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:51:09 PDT

You may not expect trash talk on National Public Radio, but recently it had a four-part series that took on garbage.

Getting Rid of Junk, Staying Green looks at the stuff Americans throw away. From our seemingly endless stream of mobile phones to the plastic bags we dump the garbage into, NPR explores what's current and what the future may hold. Each article also has related info and links that may help you take care of your excess junk.

Think we can ever get to zero waste? It's worth trying, not just talking about.

Shoes and your carbon footprint

Trystan L. Bass — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:30:56 PDT

Did you know that America has more than seven pairs of shoes per person? (If you're female and anything like me, you may have triple that in your own closet.) Did you realize that 84% of those shoes were made in China?

Sustainablog does the math and wonders about the environmental impact of all this footwear. Leaving a small footprint isn't easy when your very soles are steeped in sweatshop labor and unsustainable materials.

According to the Green Guide, everything from the leather to the glues holding our Nike cross-trainers and Manolo Blahnik stilettos together are rather toxic. Shoe factory workers get sick from the chemicals. Production waste is dumped into rivers and delicate ecosystems.

If your shoes are made of synthetic materials, the impact is just as bad. Faux leather and vinyl are made of PVC, and making this plastic creates environmental problems.

So do we have to walk barefoot if we really want to live lighter on the earth? Not necessarily.

Walk on
Ecolocalizer points out that we can start by taking better care of the shoes we do buy. Don't throw 'em out if they get a little scuffed -- repair those Jimmy Choos! I've been doing this for ages because once I find shoes I like, I want to wear them as much as possible. Getting a new sole, capping old heels, or repairing a buckle doesn't take long at a cobbler shop, and the cost is certainly less than new shoes.

Buy green
If those loafers have truly loafed their last, replace them with eco-friendly brands. Lime has a guide to stylish green shoes -- Birkenstocks are no longer the only option.

MooShoes, a vegan shoe boutique in New York, sells more than 100 styles. Hear store owner Erica Kubersky's perspective on "fashion with compassion" in this video interview.

Want something a bit more rugged? Timerland's Earthkeepers line of shoes are made of organic and renewable materials. The company is working with its suppliers -- especially leather tanneries -- to be more sustainable. You can even see the environmental footprint those hiking boots will leave, thanks to Timerbland's nutrition label on the box.

For casual kicks, Simple Shoes sells sneakers, sandals, and more made of materials like hemp, organic cotton, and recycled car tires.

And if you're a real Carrie Bradshaw type (with a green streak), step over to Great Green Shoes for almost-daily recommendations of vegan and earth-friendly shoes.

Cleaner, but at what price?

Trystan L. Bass — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:17:02 PDT

The Olympic torch has begun its around-the-world relay to Beijing for the start of the 2008 Summer Games. Likewise, the Chinese government is racing to improve the environment in Beijing. The organizing committee is even promoting this as a "green Olympics."

But if China's record on human rights -- including the recent problems in Tibet -- are any indication, the Communist country's environmental claims merit a closer look.

The biggest issue is air quality. China's capital is notorious for brown, smoggy skies caused by coal-fired power plants, coal-burning stoves, and tons of exahust-belching traffic. This is aggravated in spring and early summer by sandstorms that shroud the city for days.

According to the latest U.N. report, Beijing's air is improving, but slowly. Most pollutants in the atmosphere have finally dropped below the World Health Organization Air Quality Guidelines, but small particulate matter is still very high, as much as 200% over the safe levels.

Time magazine notes that reporters have found Beijing's Environmental Protection Bureau less than forthcoming about statistics. Is the government misreporting the current air quality?

Blogger Tim Johnson offers photographic evidence of not-so 'blue sky days' in Beijing this month. Judge for yourself if you'd want to run a marathon in that.

Water is another crucial issue in northern China -- Beijing already has to import water from the south and will need a lot more to support the estimated 2.5 million Olympic visitors. This is not without problems.

Neighboring Hebei province is being sucked dry by Beijing and is suffering from saline contamination. Groundwater in the coastal Qinhuangdao area has become unpotable.

Chinese news sources claim that water conservation efforts are being made. And "water from Hebei will be used as emergency supplies" during the Olympics.

But not everyone is satisfied. Another area nearby is also being drained for the Olympics, and one official is complaining. A leader in the Shaanxi province, An Qiyuan, wants compensation. He said: "In order to preserve the quality of Beijing's water we have to close all our factories." So the environmental impact is compounded by the economic impact.

The Beijing Games has personally affected the lives of people in the city. Somewhere between 14,000 to 1.25 million people have been displaced from their homes to build Olympic buildings, shopping malls, parks, etc. Beijing's Municipal Construction Committee reports the smaller number, and the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions estimates the larger one. Either way, it's a serious disruption, and not everyone has been moved by choice.

Animals have been relocated as well as people. In one of the more gruesome stories to come out of China, the U.K.'s Daily Mail reports on thousands of cats being rounded up for extermination. Beijing wants people to believe that cats carry disease, and pet owners are forced into abandoning the animals. The goal seems to be cleaning the streets in advance of the Summer Games.

So what good may be coming out China's Olympic ambitions?

To clear pollution by getting cars of the road, Beijing has expanded its public transportation. First to open was Line 5 (check out the great photos on TreeHugger), which connects multiple lines in the once-underused system. Beijing also got a new airport with additional subway lines that connect to it.

Even better, the government lowered fares on the subway to encourage ridership.

Other infrastructure upgrades in the city should be beneficial to residents long after the Games are gone. The World Watch Institute reports that Beijing now treats 90% of its wastewater (up from 42% in 2001), and solid waste treatment is at 97%.

Little things have changed for the better too. For example, as we noted earlier this year, China has banned plastic bags to cut back on litter.

Will these improvements balance out the harsh steps taken to get there? Will the Olympics open China up to a greener future after the last medal is awarded?

Hard to say. We'll just have to wait and watch this summer and beyond.

Clean, green sweep

Trystan L. Bass — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:25:50 PDT

So you're throwing open the windows and beating the winter blues out of the house. Spring cleaning is under way -- why not do it in an eco-friendly fashion this season?

Many of the cleaning products found in the kitchen and bathroom are full of harsh chemicals that are toxic for you and your family plus the planet.

The Union of Concerned Scientists notes that most cleaners contain petroleum products, phosphates, phthalates, or chlorine. These ingredients are either nonrenewable resources, polluting to the environment, or harmful to our health. Bad news all around!

And frankly, they're not necessary to get stuff clean. Our grandmothers kept the homefront spotless with good old-fashioned ingredients like baking soda, vinegar, lemon juice, borax, and plain soap. If you want a fancy scent, add a natural essential oil. Planet Green has a bunch of easy recipes to make your own green cleaners.

If you don't have time to mix your own stuff, look for certified biodegradable products, such as Planet brand. The EcoLogo certification is a globally recognized environmental certification worth looking for on cleaning products too.

Seventh Generation has an excellent guide to getting the toxins out of your home, and this brand of papers and cleaners lists all of its product ingredients on its website.

Even eco-celeb Ed Begley Jr. has weighed in on green cleaning with his own line of products called Begley's Best. The cleaners earned a Crade-to-Cradle certification, which means the product is not only environmentally safe but the design itself is efficient and the company is socially responsible.

Lastly, when you do get rid of any toxic cleaners, be careful. Don't just pour them down the drain. Check this saftey info about disposal, and contact your local hazardous waste department (check your phone book), if necessary.

How much will it cost to save the world?

Tony Kreindler — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:45:38 PDT

This post is by Tony Kreindler, Media Director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund.

Last week, two reports came out that look at how much it will cost to drastically reduce the pollution that causes global warming. Both used economic models to project how the growth rate would change. One used a realistic set of assumptions, and the other stacked the deck with extreme assumptions.

But both of them look at only one half of the real question. They ask "How much will it cost?" (Answer: Surprisingly little). But we also have to ask, "What do we get in return for that investment?"

The first report was put out by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation. Their numbers show some scary costs because of the assumptions they plugged in. As I said in this Miami Herald article, they figured in small use of renewable energy and other artificial constraints.

A more realistic analysis came out Friday from the EPA. The Wall Street Journal sums it up this way (subscription required, free version from Dow Jones news service):

The leading congressional proposal to control greenhouse-gas emissions could be implemented without significantly harming the nationâs economic growth over the next two decades, according to an analysis published Friday by the Bush administration.

So the investment is manageable. But what do we get for it? A more stable climate, for one. Lisa Moore discussed this most recently in her post about Earth systems that could be pushed past critical tipping points if we do nothing.

Or, put another way, if we donât make this investment, what will we end up paying? We reviewed studies that looked at the price of climate disruptions in an earlier post, "Most Expensive Solution: Do Nothing."

To summarize: If we invest in reducing pollution, we get cleaner air, more diverse sources of energy and lower risk of catastrophic climate changes -- all at a price we can handle. We should jump at a bargain when we see one.

China's outta the bag

Trystan L. Bass — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:37:13 PST

According to the Environmental News Network (via Reuters), the biggest maker of supermarket-style plastic bags in China is shutting down.

The Chinese government actually announced a ban on the flimsy bags as part of its pre-Olympics clean-up. An official state website proclaimed:

"Plastic shopping bags, due to reasons such as excessive use and inefficient recycling, have caused serious waste of energy and resources and environmental pollution."

Many doubted the ban would have much effect, or be enforceable. But with Suiping Huaqiang Plastic Co. Ltd. closing its doors, maybe plastic shopping bags are truly on their way out in China.

Now, if we could only get rid of them in the U.S. Whole Foods markets and the city of San Francisco have ditched the urban tumbleweed. More cities are looking into plastic bans or taxes, and grocery stores like Safeway (on the west coast) give you cash back when you bring your own bags.

If China can do it, so can we! Equip yourself with handy reusable bags and you'll never have to worry about choosing between paper or plastic again.

How long do greenhouse gases last?

Lisa Moore — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:07:45 PST

This post is by Lisa Moore, Ph.D., a scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.

In a comment on my Global Warming Crib Sheet, johnmashey asked if I could say something about the lifetimes of greenhouse gases - that is, how long different greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere. Great idea! Hereâs a whole post on it.

Many people donât realize that the greenhouse gases we emit can stay in the atmosphere for decades, centuries or even millennia. Thatâs why itâs so important that we cap emissions as soon as possible.

Hereâs a table showing a selection of greenhouse gases, their global warming potential (GWP), and their lifetimes:

Greenhouse Gas	Lifetime (Years)	100-Year GWP
Carbon Dioxide (CO₂)	hundreds	1
Methane (CH₄)	12	25
Nitrous Oxide (N₂O)	114	298
Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF₃)	264	14,800
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆)	3,200	22,800
PFC-14 (CF₄)	50,000	7,390

Source: Table 2.14 in the IPCC AR4 WG-I Report. Original table lists many more gases.

Notice that the carbon dioxide lifetime is âhundreds of years,â rather than a specific number.

The IPCC Third Assessment Report defines a gasâs lifetime as the amount of the gas in the atmosphere divided by the rate at which it is removed from the atmosphere. That sounds simple enough, except that not all gases are removed by just one (or mainly one) process.

Ironically, the gas that accounts for the greatest proportion of global warming, carbon dioxide (CO₂), is the hardest to pin down. When CO₂ is released into the atmosphere, about three-quarters of it dissolves into the ocean over a few decades. The rest is neutralized by a variety of longer-term geological processes, which can take thousands of years.

From IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I (AR4, WG-I) Executive Summary of Chapter 7:

About 50% of a CO₂ increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

From U.S Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reports:

Atmospheric lifetime: 50-200 years. No single lifetime can be defined for CO₂ because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.

From RealClimate post "How long will global warming last?":

My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years. I calculate a mean lifetime, from the sum of all the processes, of about 30,000 years. Thatâs a deceptive number, because it is so strongly influenced by the immense longevity of that long tail.
If one is forced to simplify reality into a single number for popular discussion, several hundred years is a sensible number to choose, because it tells three-quarters of the story, and the part of the story which applies to our own lifetimes.

For other gases, a meaningful lifetime is easier to calculate because one process dominates their removal from the atmosphere:

Methane is mostly scrubbed from the atmosphere by hydroxyl radicals (a chemical reaction).
Nitrous oxide is destroyed by photolytic reactions (chemical reactions involving photons or light) in the stratosphere.

As you can see from the chart, some gases have extraordinarily long lifetimes. Because emission rates are vastly higher than removal rates, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere and will affect climate for generations to come.

Kitty litter: A green conundrum

Trystan L. Bass — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:51:57 PST

Dogs may be man's best friend, but statistically, more kitties roam American homes. The Humane Society and the American Veterinary Medical Association estimate that the U.S. has 10 to 15 million more cats than dogs as pets (about 90 million felines total, as of 2007).

So we buy heck of a lot of kitty litter, which piles up in a stinky mess in our landfills. Green Living Online says we dump about 2 million tons of cat litter each year into the garbage. The editors of E: the Environmental Magazine point out that common clay-based clumping cat litter isn't biodegradable.

Do we have a more eco-friendly option for our furry friends?

In the past few years, biodegradable litters have come out that are made from stuff like wood chips, corn, wheat, and even recycled newspaper. Greenies at TreeHugger and Ideal Bite recommend these kitty litters over the old-fashioned kind.

But I want to take a look at the benefits of these "natural" litters. Because I'm one cat-lover with a pair of finicky felines who go into a tizzy just if I rearrange the living room furniture -- so I'm not about to switch their litter before researching the heck out of the environmental claims!

First, some background. The clumping cat litters found in every supermarket and pet store have bentonite clay as the active ingredient. This naturally occurring substance clumps when wet and expands to several times its size. It has many industrial, pharmaceutical, steel foundry, and even wastewater purification uses. Bentonite is mined in the western U.S., particularly Wyoming.

Clumping clay litters earn two big complaints. Some websites suggest that because the clay swells up, if a cat ingests it, the clay could swell up inside and cause deadly blockages. Or the dust from the litter could cause respiratory problems.

About.com has an excellent summary of the "clumping clay controversy" and traces it back to a couple of anecdotal reports. No scientific studies have linked clumping clay litters to feline illness.

Another ingredient in common litters, silica, has also been hyped as a problem. The ASPCA notes that, at worst, pets may develop mild gastrointestinal upset if they ingest litter that contains silica. But litter usually passes through the digestive tract without harm. If you're really concerned, carefully observe your cat and then talk to your vet.

The other accusation against clay litter is how it's produced. Many green websites complain that bentonite clay is strip-mined. How bad is this process for the environment?

I think you have to weigh it against the alternatives. The fact is that every type of processing has a carbon footprint, and so far, nobody has done a detailed comparison. I've uncoverd some facts, and fellow cat fanciers can be their own judges.

The Wyoming Mining Association site has pretty detailed info. about the process used to extract this clay from the ground. This group mined 5.2 million tons of bentonite in 2005, and the deposits in Wyoming make up 70% of the world's known supply.

According to the site, before a mine is dug, the topsoil and vegetation are assessed and stockpiled for future reclamation. After mining, the area is reconstructed to become grazing land for ranchers. The association claims that the new area provides "four times more vegetative production than undisturbed land."

That's the traditional litter. Now let's look at some alternative brands...

Cat Country Organic: Made from wheatgrass fiber.
Feline Pine: Made from recycled pine wood.
Good Mews: Made from recycled newspapers.
Nature's Miracle: Made from corn cobs.
One Earth Cat Litter: Made from corn cobs and yucca and pine woods.
PaPurr Scoop: Made from recycled paper.
Swheat Scoop: Made from non-food grade wheat.
World's Best Cat Litter: Made from whole-kernel corn.
Yesterday's News: Made from recycled newspapers.

Each of these materials has problems too. Farmed corn and wheat are often grown using pesticides that damage our water system. Non-organic corn may be of genetically modified stock. And the tree production for wood, then paper processing, involves plenty of chemicals and releases tons of greenhouse gases. None of these "natural" litters are truly clean either.

Also, most of these biodegradable kitty litters proclaim a big benefit is that they can be flushed down the toilet. I don't think this is a great idea. Thoughtful environmentalists know that water is a precious resource, and toilets aren't garbage cans. Let's save our valuable water for drinking, and put the cat poop elsewhere.

Another reason not to flush: sea otters. At least if you live in a coastal state and have a cat that goes outside at all.

Let me explain.

The Toxoplasma gondii parasite is found in many birds and rodents, and outdoor cats can acquire the bug from eating those critters. It usually doesn't do much harm to adult cats, but they'll pass the Toxoplasma eggs along in the cat's droppings.

It's the infected litter that's the problem. You may have heard that pregnant women shouldn't deal with the litter box -- this is why. If your cat is indoors-only (which is safest for the cat and other wildlife), you don't have to worry.

However, scientists from the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine found that 62% of dead sea otters found between 1997 and 2001 were infected with Toxoplasma. The suspected source was land-based runoff of the parasite. Landscape irrigation washes infected cat droppings from lawns into gutters, which drain into streams that feed in the ocean.

Municipal sewage systems can't always kill the Toxoplasma eggs because they have a very hard, durable coating. So when the treated sewage is released into the sea, that can hurt sea life as well. Let's not add to marine pollution with our kitty litter. A cleaner solution for those of us in coastal states is to keep the poop in the garbage.

As you can see, doing right by your cat and the planet doesn't come down to one simple choice. Do your own reading, weigh the pros and cons of the products, and decide how to clean up in a way that works for your feline family.

How sweet is that message?

Trystan L. Bass — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:02:25 PST

"Be mine." "Hot stuff." "Kiss me." Cute messages of love on a classic Valentine's Day candy -- the biggest selling sweet other than chocolate for February 14th.

But not the sweetest message you could give to the planet. Here are the top three reasons why Valentine's conversation hearts are not eco-friendly:

#1 -- Sugar

Did you know that sugar production around the world is damaging natural treasures like the Great Barrier Reef off Australia's coast and the Everglades wetlands in Florida?

According to WWF International, 121 countries produce the annual 145 tons of sugar the world eats. And unfortunately, this sugar cane and sugar beets are grown with plenty of pesticides and create toxic runoff into soil and water.

The Sugarcane Production and Environment Report (PDF) notes that it takes a whopping 1,500-3,000 liters of water to produce just 1 kg of sugar. Refining factories regularly belch out soot, ash, and other solids, while ammonia is released during sugar processing.

Better management practices could make sugar a cleaner product. But until cane growers agree to be sustainable, consumers might want to make more informed choices.

It'd be great if we could find more fair-trade sugar, but in the meantime, it's not a bad idea to cut back on sugar. Easier on the waistline anyway.

#2 -- Corn syrup

Next in the original recipe for Necco's Sweethearts Conversation Hearts is corn syrup. Now, we're not positive if this is the awful high-fructose corn syrup that's in so many of our processed foods (and has been linked to the American obesity crisis). But any kind of corn syrup has little to recommend it.

Corn is massively over-farmed and subsidized in the U.S., and this is causing a host of environmental problems right on our doorstep. Grist points out that corn farmers pour 10 billion pounds of fertilizer on their fields every year, and this junk washes down the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. The waste creates a giant algae bloom known as the "Dead Zone" that kills fish and marine plants.

#3 -- Gelatin

Number three in the recipe and the third reason these seemingly innocent treats aren't so innocent for the eco-minded is the stuff we usually associate with wiggly-jiggly Jello. Gelatin is often used in candies and desserts as a stabilizer or to simulate the mouth-feel of fat.

If you weren't aware of it already, gelatin comes from animals. Specifically, it's the boiled-down collagen from connective tissues, bones, and skin of cattle and pigs.

As we've noted before, raising livestock for food is pretty inefficient and produces far more greenhouse gases than eating a plant-based diet. You don't have to be hardcore about it -- just cutting back on animal products a few days each week for a more flexitarian lifestyle is earth-friendly.

Intstead of conversation hearts ...

Want some alternatives to those candies? If you're the sentimental type, buy a pack of recycled-content pink construction paper, cut it into big heart shapes, and write your own sweet messages on each heart.

Scatter them around your Valentine's house, tuck one in your honey's briefcase or purse, sneak one in the car before your loved one drives off to work -- this will be a Valentine's Day to remember!

Or if your sugar prefers something edible, go for fair-trade or organic chocolates. That'll guarantee a gift that's rich, decadent, and sweet on Mother Earth too.

How green do those roses grow?

Trystan L. Bass — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:07:17 PST

Nothing says love like fresh, blooming rose â¦ but at what cost to the environment?

How are those flowers grown?

Where do they come from?

And how eco-friendly is it to buy a bunch of hothouse flowers out of season anyway?

About 70% of all cut flowers sold in the U.S. are imported. Most come from Colombia and Ecuador.

Unfortunately, Latin American flower growers use a lot of chemicals on their products, including pesticides that have long been banned in our country.

The Natural Resources Defense Council notes that roses have been found with more than 50 times the pesticide residues allowed in food. Florists who handle these flowers frequently develop dermatitis on their hands.

But those who suffer the worst are the farm workers themselves.

Studies in Ecuador, Colombia, and Costa Rica found that nervous system damage, genetic damage, miscarriages, premature births, and congenital deformities are all linked to chemical exposure in the flower industry. Plus, runoff from these pesticides pollutes the waterways due to lax environmental laws in South America.

So what about that bouquet? You do have some earth-friendly options for those you care about.

Look for organic, fair-trade, or sustainable -- ideally, you'd get a flower that's all three, but that's admittedly tough to find. But any one of these will be better for the planet than a generic bloom.

You can buy flowers that are certified USDA organic. Look for the same "organic" logo that you already find on foods.

TransFair has begun certifying fair-trade flowers. The fair-trade label guarantees that workers get decent wages and the products are grown in an environmentally responsible manner.

Another label to watch for is VeriFlora. This program certifies that flowers are sustainably grown with fair labor practices, and if they're not organic, the grower is on the path to becoming organic. Certification is conducted by a recognized neutral third party.

Where can you buy flowers with any of these labels? Ask your local florist to start carrying certified roses. Also, supermarkets like Trader Joe's and Safeway now carry VeriFlora-certified flowers, plus Whole Foods may sell organic flowers. Sam's Club has fair-trade certified roses. The specific selection varies depending on your location.

You can order online for holidays and special events at various sites. All of the roses at Organic Bouquet and Organic Style are VeriFlora-certified and some are certified organic.

The "planet-friendly" section of 1-800-Flowers features organic and fair-trade bouquets and gift baskets including one bunch of fair-trade certified roses.

FTD has a "go green living" section with flowers described as 'certified sustainably grown,' but the site doesn't say where the certification comes from. When I called the 800 number, nobody could tell me more about this issue, so I'm not sure if this is green-washing or legitimate.

For more certified organic flowers, visit Diamond Organics and California Organic Flowers, or search Local Harvest for a farm near you.

If you can find local flowers, do buy them. But while so many of our cut flowers are imported, florists note that those roses are shipped in the cargo holds of passenger jets which would already be making the trip. Fragile plants can't exactly go in container ships like other imports. Thus, it's hard to say how they're adding to your carbon footprint.

The best way to show you love the planet and your loved one is with greener blooms. Organic, fair-trade, or sustainable roses help everyone enjoy the sweet scent a bit more.

Five ways to bring back the night

Cher Seruto — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:12:26 PST

Cher Seruto is an analyst with the Built Environment Team at Rocky Mountain Institute.Â

They are magnificent, present yet untouchable, the object of much affection. No, I'm not talking about celebrities. I'm talking about stars in the night sky.Â

This year, I spent the winter holidays backcountry skiing from a small hut in the national forests of southwestern Colorado, and the abundance of stars reminded me that I miss their presence in my city.Â

"Where did the night sky go?" I wondered.Â

We city dwellers often don't see many stars because of light pollution. Much of this obtrusive light is caused by excessive interior and exterior lighting from advertising, commercial properties, offices, factories, streetlights, sporting venues, and our own homes.Â

The effects of light pollution
It's very clear how development and light pollution are linked. NASA's night image of Earth (below) is proof enough.Â

Back on the ground, light pollution is pretty easy to spot too.Â

If you ever have the opportunity to look at the night sky from outside a city, scan the horizon. You can often see the direct effects of excessive lighting as a halo in the night sky.Â

When I lived in Santa Barbara, I would often walk the beach at night and look across the ocean. Instead of stars, I would see light emanating from the Los Angeles Basin 100 miles away. And at the Grand Canyon, you can see a similar halo from Las Vegas, 175 miles away.Â

Besides marring the view, light pollution wastes energy. The International Dark-Sky Association estimates that every year the United States wastes 110 billion kilowatt-hours, or $10.4 billion, on "ill-conceived, ineffective, and inefficient lighting."Â

Generating all that unneeded electricity to power those lights results in more greenhouse gas emissions that increase the threat of global warming.Â

Simple steps to reduce light pollution
With so much at stake, I'm happy to report that there are simple solutions to drastically reduce light pollution and save energy.Â

First, start at home:Â

Light only what you need. Ask yourself whether your lights are located in the right places for your daily needs.Â
Light only when you need it. Use motion sensors to cut your electricity bill, and be diligent about turning off lights that are not in use.Â
Light where you need it. Make sure that outdoor fixtures don't emit light upwards or excessively outwards. Proper lighting does not shine into the night sky or across to a neighbor's property.Â
Light in the right quantity. Look at the effects of your outdoor lights. Are shadows created that actually obstruct vision? Lower the wattage and you may be able to see better due to the reduction of shadows. I recently installed a lower wattage motion detector light outside my back doorstep and was amazed at the increase in visibility.Â
Check placement, curtains, and window coverings to make sure your indoor lighting is not shining out and up at night.Â

Next, encourage your workplace and local government to standardize the use of lighting techniques that decrease or eliminate light pollution.Â

You can find more resources and tips on reducing light pollution from the International Dark-Sky Association.

Time to act, not despair

Nat Keohane — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:43:59 PST

This post is by Nat Keohane, Director of Economic Policy and Analysis at Environmental Defense.

In his December 11 post on Grist, Ross Gelbspan argues that we've already passed the point of no return with global warming, and climate activists are full of "hollow optimism."

There's no doubt we're already seeing signs of global warming. In our Climate 411 blog, we post signs of it all the time (see here, here, here, and here, for example). But just because the boat has started to leak doesn't mean it can't still get much worse. Our most dangerous response to climate change is despair. Now, more than ever, we need to act.

Gelbspan agrees. Where we disagree is in what action to take.

He says that the American public has a "mindless belief in the divine power of markets" and the "antidote" is a "revitalization of government" -- that the government should pour hundreds of billions of dollars into carbon-free technologies.

This is where we part company. Technological innovation is not most quickly and efficiently implemented by government programs. Markets are much more nimble and able to respond in real time to what works and what doesn't. Our best hope is to get the power of markets working for us through a cap-and-trade system.

Global warming is a classic example of market failure. The pollution that causes global warming has skyrocketed because the environmental costs are hidden, and we don't factor them into our decisions. Factories and power plants pay for the fuel they burn, but not for the pollution they emit. The solution is to harness the power of market forces by establishing firm caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

We have proof that this works in the acid rain program. When we put a cap on sulfur dioxide (SO₂), the cause of acid rain, the power sector and its suppliers came up with a range of technological innovations to meet the new limits. Some were relatively mundane -- for example, figuring out how to burn low-sulfur Wyoming coal in boilers designed for high-sulfur coal from Illinois or West Virginia. Others were more dramatic. The prospect of a cap on SO₂ prodded a team of GE engineers to figure out how to turn the waste from a "scrubber" into gypsum, which could be sold as a byproduct.

Research by Carnegie Mellon University showed that patent filings spiked after the Clean Air Act [PDF] though the government had been supporting research for long before that. They conclude, "The existence of national government regulation stimulated inventive activity more than government research support alone."

Again and again, American entrepreneurs and investors have shown the ability to solve problems -- when there is a market incentive for them to act. If the government will lead by capping carbon pollution, the primary cause of climate change, theÂ market will respond with investment and innovation on a scale to solve this problem. Already, venture capitalists are pouring more than $300 million a month into new energy technologies. But it will take the certainty of a cap, an overall limit on carbon pollution, to unleash a sustained wave of investment and innovation.

Take one example of many: Burning coal to produce electricity is responsible for about 40 percent of the CO₂ emissions from the United States. In a typical coal-fired power plant, nearly one-third of the coal's energy is lost as waste heat, greatly contributing to this pollution.

A cap on carbon would give companies a monetary incentive to reduce that waste, so work to increase efficiency would rapidly expand. The new technologies could then be sold overseas, not only helping our balance of trade, but reducing greenhouse gas emissions in places like China.

The incredible momentum for action on climate change is, in itself, a testament to the fact that we can solve this problem.

The more than two dozen CEOs, from firms like GE, Caterpillar, and Duke Energy, who endorsed a mandatory cap on carbon are hard-headed realists. They spoke out for a better world, but they also spoke up for their stockholders. It is the considered judgment of these corporate leaders that the carbon cap they endorsed is both technologically achievable and economically sound.

With sufficient motivation, we can rise to the challenge and do what's necessary. A cap on greenhouse gas emissions is the incentive we need to drive innovation and efficiency. We know what we need to do, and we have the ability to do it.