Water, Water, Everywhere

A couple days ago on Morning Edition, I heard yet another story about how tap water is now dangerous. This time the story was about Congress starting a series of hearings on the findings that tap water in various cities was found to have minuscule amounts of multiple prescription drugs, and included a scientist who said that although tests had determined that people were not affected by such minute amounts of individual drugs, it was not clear what the results could be from ingesting the combination of all of them.

Now I'm normally concerned about pollution, and the idea that our water is laced with random medications is kind of scary. But the more I hear about it, the more I get frustrated. First of all, the proportions of chemicals they're finding are tiny - so much so that we are only able to trace them now with the latest equipment; just a few years ago we wouldn't have even known we had this problem. That doesn't make them safe, but it does mean we're in a media-induced frenzy over something that likely has been going on for a long time.

Second, water is one of the few truly recyclable resources, as many drought-ridden cities are starting to realize. Cleaning and filtering sewer water, while it definitely has the "yuck" factor, is much cheaper, takes less energy, and has fewer bad byproducts than de-salination, which somehow seems so much less gross. Desalination is extremely energy-intensive, which is why it's generally done only in oil-rich, water-pour Middle-Eastern countries. Furthermore, Ocean water isn't actually all that clean - there's a whole lot of raw sewage (thank you, Victoria and Mr. Floatie, among other places!), garbage, and salt. And after they de-salinate and remove that briny, gross stuff, what do plants generally do? Throw it back in the ocean, of course, so the problem just gets worse. Cities like San Diego are finally figuring this out and building sewage to tap plants despite public concern.

Clearly we're not going to get away from this problem. There's less "clean" (i.e. evaporated, rained down, and filtered through some rock into a stream or lake) water available and more people who want to drink it. We can do better at conserving by reusing our grey water for gardening and other non-potable needs, but ultimately we need to drink. The only alternative I can think of is for all of us to start drinking mead. Either the alcohol will kill off anything bad in the water, or if it can't, at least we'll all be happier.

Green Buildings

Monday on All Things Considered, Michele Norris reported on Beijing’s ambitious plan for every new building to be 50% more efficient and environmentally friendly by 2010. It’s great to see the Chinese government thinking about the environment since there are plenty of counter-examples and issues, and since China has so much construction going on it’s a reasonable thing to focus on. However, I still wish the focus wasn’t on green products but conservation.

In the Seattle Times this weekend there was an article about going green, and it started with a great question – how many green products does it take to reduce your ecological footprint? The answer? As few as possible. Green products are great, but buying more to save the planet is going about it backwards. I’m totally guilty of this – between the two of us, J and I probably have 15 heavy-duty plastic water bottles so we can avoid using disposable water bottles. Do we really need so many? Same with fancy new buildings – I get that people need places to live and work, and if we have to build them we should certainly do so in as environmentally friendly a way as possible, but wouldn’t it be better to figure out how to need less stuff in the first place?

I also read – I think in Seattle Magazine - that the various certification programs, particularly the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™, can encourage some unfortunate behavior by developers trying to tack on just enough features to reach a specific certification level while not actually thinking holistically about the best way to design a building (how to situate it on a site, where to source the materials, etc). I think LEED is a great start – it’s hard to improve something you can’t measure – but I just worry that the Chinese government will focus on this one element and then rest on their laurels regarding the rest of the environmental issues.

Cardboard Economy

According to All Things Considered, we are all ignoring one of the best economic indicators - cardboard production. I love hearing stories like this that take a complex financial thing like the US economy and make a clear analogy with something we can all relate to. It makes good sense - if cardboard production is up (I guess it's not a commodity where the price really changes; it's just a question of how much is being made at a given time) then that means manufacturers are making, and therefore selling, more goods, and that the economy is therefore okay. This is a fun way of looking at things, but I did have a couple of thoughts while I was listening:

1. The fact that manufacturers are making more goods doesn't indicate where they're being sold, or to whom. If they're being sold in the US, it could indicate that US consumers are still spending like crazy even though their mortgages are falling apart - which doesn't make me, a solidly conservative "debt is always bad" sort of saver, feel all that encouraged. We could also be selling all those goods to countries outside the US which are taking advantage of our pathetically low dollar. Neither of these would necessarily indicate a strong economy.
2. I feel uncomfortable being happy that we're killing more trees to make more cardboard. Shouldn't we be using existing boxes, and making lighter-weight packaging that takes a lower toll on the environment? I guess on the scale of environmentally-friendly packing material, cardboard is pretty good, but still...Of course my friend M says that he buys non-recycled stuff because it encourages people to grow more trees and is actually more environmentally friendly. C and I had a long discussion about this and agreed that this might be true in places where it's all new trees being harvested, but in BC where older growth trees (read: 50++ years, when trees are in prime carbon reduction mode) are being chopped down, we don't really think that's the case.
3. As the president of President Container spoke about his operation, I once again had to note that there are a lot of people who work in jobs might as well be on a different planet from mine. I'm very glad that I don't have to think about how many yards of cardboard are going through and whether the cutter is going to get jammed, but I do have to keep reminding myself that there's a lot more people like that then people like me.

So cardboard. I guess it's the new gold standard.

Nuclear Power

David Kestenbaum did a report on All Things Considered today about France's plans for storing nuclear waste from their reactors. Some astounding amount of France's power comes from nuclear reactors, one of the few things the French government seems to have handled competently (they need power and don't have natural reserves, so nuclear is a reasonable solution). What I didn't realize was that the French aren't all enamoured of nuclear power, even though they have been using it safely for years. I always assumed that fear of nuclear energy would go away after enough exposure to it, but according to Mr. Kestenbaum, 1 in 3 French people is opposed to nuclear power, and only 1 in 5 is actually for it (I'm not sure how those numbers worked out, but it's an EU poll, so we can only imagine).

The biggest issue there, just like here, is where to store the nuclear waste. In France they've mandated a location - a city called Bure - and are dumping enough money there to convince the residents that it's a reasonable idea, although many still don't like it. Here, Yucca mountain has been under discussion for years as a spot to store our nuclear waste, and we don't seem to be any closer to a resolution. Honestly, though, I think it's just a matter of perception - people are disproportionately scared of radiation without really understanding it - perhaps because they don't really understand it.

In my college physics class (thank goodness for Professor Muller - even if it was the worst grade of my entire university career, at least he made it fun), we watched a documentary about attitudes of people who lived near a nuclear reactor. One of the men who worked at the facility was found to have elevated levels of radiation, but on investigation it was discovered that the radiation wasn't coming from the nuclear plant, but instead from naturally occurring radon in the earth. When local people found out about this, they were relieved, because the radiation was coming from "natural" causes. They went about their daily business, continuing to hate and mistrust the nuclear power plant and not worry about the fact that they were all going to get cancer. Of course as physics students, we knew that it was only the type of radiation, not the source, that mattered. But we weren't surprised to see that average Americans didn't understand that distinction.

Similarly, we don't seem to have problems finding places to build new coal power plants in the US, but no one wants a nuclear waste facility anywhere near them. I don't get it - the pollution caused by the coal plants is going to have a much larger impact on the environment and people's health - at least in the near future - than a waste facility. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a complete proponent of nuclear power, and frankly I wouldn't want any kind of power plant or waste facility in my backyard. But if I had to choose, trying to address the energy crisis by expanding our nuclear facilities seems like a much better way to go.

Picking on Nigeria

I guess it's better than picking on China again...last week on Morning Edition, Ofeibea Quist-Arcton (yet another fabulous NPR name) covered the environmental disaster caused by burning natural gas in Nigeria's oil fields. I was surprised to hear that Nigerian natural gas is burned on site in the oil fields rather than being used for energy because the oil coming up is worth so much money that it's not worthwhile to separate and transport it. The fires created are actually visible by Satellite (they actually specified that you can see the fires in Google Earth and there's a picture on the NPR website, but of course you could use any company's satellite viewing technology). Why is this a problem?

1. It causes more carbon emissions than any single source in the rest of Africa.
2. Natural gas flares worldwide account for more emissions than all the Kyoto treaty projects will prevent combined.
3. Nigerian villages nearby are poverty stricken and have no electricity, even though their natural resources are being used. Nigeria in general suffers from energy shortage.
4. The nearby villagers are getting sick from the polluted air, and the heat is killing their crops.
5. All that energy is being wasted - the World Bank (through wikipedia) says it's enough to supply the entire world with their natural gas needs for 20 days.

So why is this picking on Nigeria rather than just alerting us to a serious environmental issue? Well, there are two reasons:

1. In the piece, Ms. Quist-Arcton devoted one quick sentence to the fact that Russia actually burns more natural gas than Nigeria does. So why aren't we picking on Russia? Surely they have more infrastructure and natural gas pipelines already in place, and getting them to change their habits will have more impact overall
2. Secondly, Nigeria is one of the few places in the world where they're lowering the amount of gas flaring (they promised to eliminate it by 2008, and although they won't make that target, they're making progress towards it). Again, why not pick on countries that aren't doing their bit?

So there you go, picking on Nigeria. I guess it wouldn't be news if it wasn't picking on someone.

Plankton Credits

On Marketplace last night, Alex Schmidt reported on the business of selling carbon offsets, and specifically a new facet of it: plankton. In all the time I've been ranting about individual carbon offset buyers and the fact that they're busy buying indulgences for their hummers* I haven't really put a lot of thought into the people selling credits. I do feel like there's something kind of sketchy about being paid to plant trees, which for some reason seems like it should be an altruistic act, not an act of capitalism. But on the other hand, it's nice when people doing good for the planet get paid for their effort. Now, with the US poised to possibly (finally) sign the Kyoto Accords, there's the chance that we would set up a real system where companies would have to cut their carbon emissions or pay for offsets (it's already like that in Europe) so of course there are lots of companies investigating interesting ways to cut carbon in the air.

Schmidt's story was about one company in particular that's trying to artificially induce plankton to grow in the ocean by dumping iron into it. The idea is that the plankton will act like a tree planted on land and reduce CO2 in the air. What Schmidt failed to do was ask any questions:

1. What happens to the iron when you dump a bunch of it in the ocean? I can't imagine that that's good for the sea or the fish long-term.
2. How long does the plankton keep sequestering the carbon? As far as I know, when a plant dies it gives carbon back off as it decays; does plankton do the same?
3. What will be the long-term effect of lots of additional plankton in the ocean? Will there be disproportionate growth in the populations of fish that eat it? Will it prevent the ocean from the current carbon sequestration it already does? Will the plankton give off some other chemical we don't want?
4. According to wikipedia, there are potentially a lot of positives about adding iron to oceans that need it, making them more productive and healthier, but who's to say that the companies trying to sell offsets will stick to oceans that need iron?

I love Marketplace and the economic perspective they take on stories, but it seems like for this one, Kai Ryssdal needs to take over and try again.

*There was a great tongue-in-cheek article about this in a recent issue of Time Magazine, actually, where the author suggested that we allow parents to buy credits when they want to hit their children. They'll purchase a credit which would pay off a parent who regularly hits their kid in exchange for them taking the day off. The child abuser is happy, the kid who would have gotten hit is happy, and the parent who bought the credit is happy. The credit-buying parent's kid, not so much.

Quick Gore Update

With all the press surrounding Gore and his potential presidential run, (which he vehemently denies, and which just shows that my basic assumption: anyone who actually wants to run for president should automatically be disqualified also holds true in the negative: anyone who seems like they maybe should run for president is not interested) I've learned a bit more about the energy use in his Tennessee home (see previous post on carbon rants).

I, along with everyone else, was annoyed to hear that Gore's home used 20 times as much energy as an average home even though, according to my calculations, it was only 4 times as big. However, according to a recent issue of Time magazine there are two somewhat mitigating circumstances:

1. The amount of energy Gore uses in some of the figures cited was calculated by the cost of his electric bill rather than actual kilowatts used (NPR used kilowatts though, and that's what I blogged about). However, he chooses to pay more for electricity by paying for power only from renewable sources. According to MSNBC, the Gores paid twice as much for this power, so that means some stories probably doubled the amount of energy they actually used.
2. The Gores bought their house five years ago and are still in the process of upgrading it to use energy-efficient glass in the windows, add solar panels etc.

Wikipedia also mentions that Gore's home, with it's security needs, is not an average home, and that the reason they haven't added solar panels until now is that the neighborhood zoning rules didn't allow it until recently.

None of this takes away from the fact that every article about Gore mentions that he buys carbon offsets, which I still think are completely bogus, but at least they also say he flies commercial to save energy, unlike the Queen.

Going Bananas

Today on All Things Considered was letter day, and one of the letters was about a story last week about - you guessed it - carbon. Apparently they asked the question, "which is better, composting your banana peel, or putting it in the garbage disposal?" The response was that it doesn't matter because the carbon that is in the disintegrating banana was taken from the air in the first place. The letter-writer said that they should have thought outside the box and said, "neither" - that you shouldn't eat bananas because they're not grown locally and the amount of carbon used to transport them is very high. So I have two responses:

1. Damn, I knew I was doing badly at my "eat local" goals when I tried that mango last week, but I really hadn't thought through bananas. Bananas are a staple at our house. J will only eat them when they're at the perfect ripeness but I like them in almost any condition - in cereal when under-ripe, on brown rice crackers with peanut butter when perfect, and in banana pancakes when they're past their prime. Mmmm. I'm not giving them up, even if they do get carted all the way from Guatemala. So much for my ideals.
2. The fact that the carbon output of a banana is the same whether you stick it in the garbage disposal or in the compost pile isn't the only thing to consider, and I'm disappointed that they wouldn't have reported that of course it's better to compost it and re-use the remains than to stick it in a landfill (or in the Juan de Fuca Straight if you're in Victoria)

And even more follow-up

According to Morning Edition the Queen of England is planning to spend $20,000 on carbon credits to offset the carbon emitted on her state visit to the US. Why does she have to spend so much money? Because she wants to feel better about the fact that she and her small entourage are flying by themselves in an otherwise empty large passenger jet! Just the kind of hypocritical "conservation" I like to waste my time railing against.

To Follow Up

In his blog today, Dan Savage reviewed an article in The Nation, a magazine which I definitely don't read and I'm surprised he does, regarding carbon consumption for various methods of travelling (see my blog post from last week) . Not only is it an interesting, if depressing, discussion, but it's also by Dan Savage and therefore worth reading by definition. In general, while cars suck, planes, zeppelins, trains, and boats suck too, and possibly more.

Everything tastes better when you're thirty

This week The World Today (along with most other programs) seems to be doing a series of environmentally-minded shows, likely because of Earth day last weekend. It was also my birthday this week, so maybe they're doing it for me - who knows. Either way, it's been pretty interesting.

On Tuesday night, they reported that Richard Branson is touting Virgin Air's plan to use an ethanol-like fuel instead of regular gasoline at some point in the future. I was glad that they tried to debunk the "we're so socially minded" advertising by interviewing an environmental activist pointed out that bio-fuels aren't that great, because they have a large carbon footprint when you add up all the fertilizer used to grow and store them. Unfortunately, after starting off strong, he began to discuss how if you used grasses or cut down rainforests (why on earth would you do that?) to get the fuel rather than using corn, you would be releasing carbon into the air that the plants were currently locking into the ground (?) and you'd be replacing them with a monoculture (?) and by the way the solution was that we should all stop flying airplanes for the next 15 years or so while we collected fuel from renewable sources. Okay, glad they got someone realistic there.

On Wednesday night, James Fletcher did a great report about indirect carbon footprints. Instead of just looking at our direct CO2, he argued, we should look at the CO2 released by all the things we buy and eat. As an example, he figured out the amount of CO2 released by a cheeseburger. To do this, you need to add up the amount emitted by growing the tomato and lettuce and wheat for the bun, the amount thrown off by transporting the food to the restaurant or processing facilities, the amount used in cooking, and most importantly, the amount that comes from the cow through it's regular bodily functions. A cow releases methane of course, which is apparently 28 times worse for the ozone layer than CO2, and, I guess because they have four stomachs with which to ferment food, and especially because of all the corn the poor things are fed in our industrialized farming society (which causes intense indigestion) - they burp and fart a lot. Enough that the footprint for one cheeseburger is four and a half pounds of CO2! Just another reason for me to be glad I don't eat red meat.