Ocean Acidification and Corals

Guest post by Steven Goddard

The BBC ran an article this week titled “Acid oceans ‘need urgent action‘” based on the premise:

The world’s marine ecosystems risk being severely damaged by ocean acidification unless there are dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, warn scientists.

This sounds very alarming, so being diligent researchers we should of course check the facts. The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid. One also has to wonder how they measured the pH of the ocean to 4 decimal places in 1751, since the idea of pH wasn’t introduced until 1909.

The BBC article then asserts:

The researchers warn that ocean acidification, which they refer to as “the other CO2 problem”, could make most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase.

This does indeed sound alarming, until you consider that corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era - nearly 500 million years ago - when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today. (One might also note in the graph below that there was an ice age during the late Ordovician and early Silurian with CO2 levels 10X higher than current levels, and the correlation between CO2 and temperature is essentially nil throughout the Phanerozoic.)

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide_files/image002.gif

Perhaps corals are not so tough as they used to be? In 1954, the US detonated the world’s largest nuclear weapon at Bikini Island in the South Pacific. The bomb was equivalent to 30 billion pounds of TNT, vapourised three islands, and raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees. Yet half a century of rising CO2 later, the corals at Bikini are thriving. Another drop in pH of 0.075 will likely have less impact on the corals than a thermonuclear blast. The corals might even survive a rise in ocean temperatures of half a degree, since they flourished at times when the earth’s temperature was 10C higher than the present.

There seems to be no shortage of theories about how rising CO2 levels will destroy the planet, yet the geological record shows that life flourished for hundreds of millions of years with much higher CO2 levels and temperatures. This is a primary reason why there are so many skeptics in the geological community. At some point the theorists will have to start paying attention to empirical data.

Stop Global Warming

Each of us can make small changes every day that will help stop global warming. At the same time these steps can also save money. Here are a few suggestions for small changes that businesses can make:

• Switch to compact fluorescent lights. For a cost study refer to Get Energy Smart Now. Make sure to recycle used light bulbs properly. If your office is in a commercial building with overhead fluorescent lighting try turning off the overhead lights when there is sufficient daylight to further reduce your energy expenditure.


• Use recycled paper and green office supplies. Shop local for these items if possible as many office supply stores carry recycled paper. You can also find additional green office products at The Green Office, Dolphin Blue, and Tree Cycle.


• Reduce paper and energy wasted by stopping junk mail. If you use direct mail yourself make sure to maintain your lists and target mail campaigns effectively or try email campaigns instead.


• Use email campaigns instead of direct mail to effectively reach your target audience. You will save money at the same time you save natural resources and reduce energy expenditures.

For more assistance check to see if your local area has a program such as the Bay Area Green Business Program. Each of us making small changes can make a difference.

Scientists seek clues in historic global warming

Climate experts today began a major conference in Wellington canvassing evidence of climate change before humans .

The conference at Te Papa, organised by GNS Science, is probing evidence of greenhouse effects in the climate of the Paleogene period, 65 to 35 million years ago.

This is thought to be the most recent time the Earth experienced global warming on a scale similar to what is now being projected as a result of human activity.

On Wednesday, leading scientists will stage a one-day symposium to showcase the role that research into the ancient greenhouse world can play in advancing understanding of modern climate change.

Speakers will explore the role of greenhouse gases in driving Paleogene episodes of extreme global warming, the effects that warming had on biological systems, how natural feedback systems modulate climate and atmospheric greenhouse gas levels and the effectiveness of climate models in simulating greenhouse climate states.

Conference organiser Chris Hollis said there was growing evidence that temperatures in high latitude places like New Zealand have been far higher than previously thought.

In a paper on global temperature over the past 100 million years, Professor Peter Barrett, of Victoria University, said the "greenhouse world" was 6degC to 7degC warmer than today with only small ice sheets in the interior of Antarctica.

Antarctic ice core records from relatively recent times showed a close association between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature over the past 800,000 years.

"It seems that from a geological perspective, without concerted intervention now, there is a credible risk of Earth's climate, by the end of the century, reverting to greenhouse world temperature, but with `residual' polar ice sheets," he said.

Polar Sea Ice Changes are Having a Net Cooling Effect on the Climate

A guest post by Steven Goddard

One of the most widely discussed climate feedbacks is the albedo effect of polar sea ice loss. Ice has a relatively high albedo (reflectance) so a reduction in polar ice area has the effect of causing more shortwave radiation (sunlight) to be absorbed by the oceans, warming the water. Likewise, an increase in polar sea ice area causes more sunlight to be reflected, decreasing the warming of the ocean. The earths radiative balance is shown in the image below. It is believed that about 30% of the sunlight reaching the earth’s atmosphere is directly reflected - 20% by clouds, 6% by other components of the atmosphere, and 4% by the earth’s surface.

http://www.aer.com/scienceResearch/rc/rc.html

We all have heard many times that summer sea ice minimums have declined in the northern hemisphere over the last 30 years. As mentioned above, this causes more sunlight to reach the dark ocean water, and results in a warming of the water. What is not so widely discussed is that southern hemisphere sea ice has been increasing, causing a net cooling effect. This article explains why the cooling effect of excess Antarctic ice is significantly greater than the warming effect of missing Arctic ice.

Over the last 30 years Antarctic sea ice has been steadily increasing, as shown below.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot.png

December is the month when the Antarctic sun is highest in the sky, and when the most sunlight reaches the surface. Thus an excess of ice in December has the maximum impact on the southern hemisphere’s radiative balance. In the Antarctic, the most important months are mid-October through mid-February, because those are months when the sun is closest to the zenith. The rest of the year there is almost no shortwave radiation to reflect, so the excess ice has little effect on the shortwave radiative (SW) balance.

This has been discussed in detail by Roger Pielke Sr. and others in several papers.

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-222.pdf

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-256.pdf

So how does this work? Below are the details of this article’s thesis.

1. As mentioned above, the Antarctic ice excess occurs near the December solstice when the sun is highest above the horizon. By contrast, the Arctic ice deficiency appears near the equinox - when the sun is low above the horizon. Note in the graph below, that Arctic ice reaches it’s minimum in mid-September - just when the sun is setting for the winter at the North Pole. While the September, 2008 ice minimum maps were dramatic, what they did not show is that there was little sunlight reaching the water that time of year. The deviation from normal did not begin in earnest until mid-August, so there were only a couple of weeks where the northern hemisphere SW radiative balance was significantly impacted. Thus the water in most of the ice-deficient areas did not warm significantly, allowing for the fast freeze-up we saw during the autumn.

The 2008 peak Arctic ice anomaly occurred near the equinox, when it had the minimum heating effect on the ocean.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

By contrast, the peak Antarctic ice anomaly occurred at the December solstice, when it had a maximum cooling effect, as shown below.

2. The next factor to consider is the latitude of the ice, which has a strong effect on the amount of solar insolation received. Arctic sea ice is closer to the pole than Antarctic sea ice. This is because of the geography of the two regions, and can be seen in the NSIDC images below.

Antarctic sea ice forms at latitudes of about 55-75 degrees, whereas most Arctic ice forms closer to the pole at latitudes of 70-90 degrees. Because Antarctic ice is closer to the tropics than Arctic ice, and the sun there reaches a higher angle above the horizon, Antarctic sea ice receives significantly more solar radiation in summer than Arctic sea ice does in its’ summer. Thus the presence or absence of Antarctic ice has a larger impact on the SW radiative balance than does the presence or absence of Arctic ice.

At a latitude of -65 degrees, the sun is about 40 degrees below the zenith on the day of the solstice. Compare that to early September negative anomaly peak in the Arctic at a latitude of 80 degrees, when the sun is more than 70 degrees below the zenith. The amount of solar radiation hitting the ice surface at those maxima is approximately 2.2 times greater in the the Antarctic than it is in the Arctic = cos(70) / cos(40) .

The point being again, that due to the latitude and date, areas of excess Antarctic ice reflect a lot of SW radiation back out into space, whereas deficient Arctic ice areas allow a much smaller quantity of SW radiation to reach the dark surface of water. Furthermore, in September the angle of incidence of the sun above the water is below the critical angle, so little sunlight penetrates the surface, further compounding the effect. Thus the Antarctic positive anomaly has a significantly larger effect on the earth’s SW balance than does the Arctic negative anomaly.

3. The next point is an extension of 2. By definition, excess ice is further from the pole than missing ice. Thus a 10% positive anomaly has more impact on the earth’s SW balance than does a 10% negative anomaly.

4. Due to eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the earth is 3% closer to the sun near the December solstice, than it is during the June solstice. This further compounds the importance of Antarctic ice excess relative to Arctic ice deficiency.

All of these points work together to support the idea that so far, polar ice albedo feedback has been opposite of what the models have predicted. To date, the effect of polar albedo change has most likely been negative, whereas all the models predicted it to be positive. There appears to be a tendency in the climate community to discount the importance of the Antarctic sea ice increase, and this may not be appropriate.

thanks to wattsupwiththat

New California Cars Display Smog, Global Warming Scores

SACRAMENTO, California, January 2, 2009 (ENS) - As of January 1, every 2009 model year and newer car built for sale in California will be required to carry a label that clearly ranks the vehicle's environmental impact. A vehicle's certification level can be found under the hood on the vehicle emissions control information label.

The label will show a simple ranking system that provides consumers with practical information that can help them choose the most environmentally friendly vehicle that still meets their transportation needs.

"This label will arm consumers with the information they need to choose a vehicle that saves gas, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps fight smog all at once," said California Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols. "Consumer choice is an especially powerful tool in our fight against climate change."

The environmental performance label will have two scores on a scale of 1-10, a global warming score and a smog score.

The higher the score the more environmentally friendly the car is. The average new car will score five on both scales.

Electric cars earn the highest ratings on both scores. One car rating 10 on both scores is the GEM electric car from Global Electric Motors, a Chrysler company. Priced at $12,495, the GEM is 100 percent battery-electric and does not use any gasoline.

A GEM electric car is the highest rated car for both the smog and the global warming scores.

Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, creating global warming. Scientists are certain that human activities such as burning gasoline for transportation are changing the composition of the atmosphere and warming the planet's climate.

Greenhouse gases emitted from vehicles include carbon dioxide, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydroflurocarbons from air conditioner refrigerant. Greenhouse gas emissions are identified as the CO2-equivalent value.

The California global warming score is based on the sum of a vehicle's greenhouse gas emissions, which are identified as the CO2-equivalent value.

The global warming score ranks each vehicle's CO2-equivalent value on a scale of one to 10 relative to all other vehicles within the current model year.

A score of 10 is the cleanest a vehicle can rate and indicates that the vehicle emits less than 200 grams of CO2-equivalent per mile driven.

A score of one is the dirtiest a vehicle can rate and indicates that the vehicle emits more than 520 grams of CO2-equivalent per mile driven.

The global warming scores are adjusted to reflect the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions from the production and distribution of the fuel used to power the vehicle.

Smog is hazy air pollution produced by the photochemical reaction of sunlight with volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen released into the atmosphere, especially by automobile operation.

California's new smog score ranks each vehicle's pollutant levels of non-methane organic gases and oxides of nitrogen relative to all other vehicles within the current model year.

Smog scores will be on a scale of one to 10, with 10 being the cleanest. The average vehicle available in California today will get a smog score of 5. Many pre-2004 vehicles fall below a smog score of one. This is because, over time, there have been significant advances in air pollution control technologies and the Air Resources Board has established more stringent pollution standards for vehicles.

Michigan press offers online read of its Santa book about global warming

A children's book author hopes that her new Christmas story will help kids realize that they can have an impact on global warming.


"Santa Goes Green" (Mackinac Island Press, $15.95) is the story of a boy, Finn, who writes Santa and asks him to help raise awareness about global warming. Finn is interested in the issue because he has adopted a polar bear, and polar bears are losing their habitat.

Finn tells Santa he does not need any toys for Christmas, but instead he wants the jolly old elf's help. "Santa can do anything in (Finn's) mind," says author and publisher Anne Margaret Lewis.

The book has sold about 13,000 copies since the small Traverse City children's books publisher put a previewable version of the entire book online last month (at mackinacislandpress.com). Now in its second printing, it's a runaway hit.

Success has come without the embrace of mass-market booksellers, although Borders Books bought some for its Great Lakes-area stores. Librarians across the country are ordering "Santa" and other books, too, says associate publisher Brian Lewis. "It's really word-of-mouth people buying copies," he says. "It's this organic growth that we love."

ExtraordinaryMommy.com blogger Danielle Smith, bought "Santa" and other titles after looking at them online. She began touting the books. "People get to see every single page and every single detail," she says.

The "Santa Goes Green" "artistry is so rich, and the story is so sweet and well-told," Smith says. "I think that it resonates this time of year. And green is something we try to do in little bits and pieces, and when you have it in front of you, it's tangible on a child's level."

The project is a Lewis family affair. Anne, who has written 10 children's books, has been married to Brian for 22 years. And their son, Cameron, who is 6, gave Anne the idea for the book.

The Lewises married several years after they met in northern Michigan while windsurfing. She worked part time, then full time at Sleeping Bear Press, a small publishing firm that Brian started and sold six years ago. Before that, he also sold Lewis Publishers, an environmental publishing company started with his father in 1984. Then in 2004, Anne started Mackinac Island Press.

Theirs is not the only new, green Santa book. Another is "When Santa Turned Green" (Thomas Nelson Publishers, $15.99), but what makes the Lewises' book different is that you can see the whole book online before committing to buy it. "This mechanism has opened the door," says Brian Lewis. "We don't have to rely entirely on someone in New York City" to decide the fate of their product.

Early last summer, Anne and Cameron were reading a "National Geographic" article about how global warming has melted glaciers, which in turn reduced places for bears to live and hunt. "He asked how we could help the polar bears, so we started going around the house every time we left a room and shut the lights off. Then we would say, "We just saved another polar bear,' " she says. "I was trying to convince him that you can make a difference, and it worked."

That got Lewis to wondering whether she could write a book that would pass along the feeling. "I wanted it to be about polar bears because of how it came to be," she says. "And then I thought, who would a child think is the most powerful person who could help him do that? Santa. The story just started evolving."

Such a story of self-sacrifice fit into her writing style. "I tend to hide messages in books because I want (children) to learn through characters and the actions of characters that they can have fun or be a loyal friend," Lewis says. "My message is that kids can make a difference."

Calif. set to adopt sweeping global warming plan

SACRAMENTO, Calif. California's utilities, refineries and large factories must transform their operations to cut greenhouse gas emissions as part of a new climate plan before state regulators.
On Thursday, the California Air Resources Board was expected to adopt what would be the nation's most sweeping global warming plan, outlining for the first time how individuals and businesses would meet a landmark 2006 law that made the state a leader on global climate change.

It would hold California's worst polluters accountable for the heat-trapping emissions they produce - transforming how people travel, utilities generate power and businesses use electricity.

At the heart of the plan is the future creation of a carbon-credit market designed to give the state's major polluters cheaper ways to cut emissions. If adopted, the plan would set clear strategies for how the country's most populous state plans to cut emissions at a time many governments around the world are struggling with a financial crisis that threatens to undermine efforts to fight climate change.

California's 2006 law, called the Global Warming Solutions Act, mandates the state cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The strategy chosen by air regulators relies on 31 new rules affecting all facets of life, from what fuels Californians put in their vehicles to what kind of air conditioners businesses put in their buildings.

The average Californian, for example, can expect to pay to have his or her car tires inflated during oil changes and to pay higher power bills as utilities try to increase their use of renewable energy. He or she could also see more fuel-efficient cars at dealerships, better public transportation, new housing near schools and businesses, and utility rebates to equip homes to be more energy efficient. New fees and reporting requirements will accompany the emission rules. Finding ways to implement California's target has not been without controversy.

Republicans, small businesses and major industries that will be forced to change their operations say jobs could be lost, companies might leave the state and energy prices will skyrocket. California's nonpartisan legislative analyst and independent scientists have criticized some of the air board's research, saying the costs to the state could be greater than projected. Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, has asked the board to postpone its vote and perform a more thorough economic analysis.

An air board analysis published in September projected California's economy would grow faster if the state acts to cut emissions. It estimated 100,000 more jobs would be created and the average California household would save $400 a year by driving more fuel-efficient vehicles and living in more energy-efficient homes. Air board chairwoman Mary Nichols said she was optimistic the country would be out of the recession by the time California's industries, commercial businesses and individuals must begin complying with emission regulations in 2012. Once all the measures are in force, the air board projects the cost to the state at $25 billion in 2020, but said that will be more than offset by the savings - which it estimates at $40 billion that year.

Supporters of the law also hope it will make California a leader in green technology, attracting investments and jobs. Most of the reductions in California's emissions will come from more detailed regulations that will be written over the next few years, including rules governing a cap-and-trade program that launches in 2012 to help the largest polluters achieve emission cuts. But allowing businesses to buy their way out of the problem is another contentious part of the plan.

Representatives of California's poor communities say the polluting power plants, refineries and factories in their neighborhoods could write a check rather than cut emissions.

From hoof to dinner table, a new bid to cut emissions

The Lancet medical journal and groups like the Food Ethics Council in Britain have supported his suggestion to eat less red meat to control global emissions, noting that Westerners eat more meat than is healthy anyway.

Producing a pound of beef creates 11 times as much greenhouse gas emission as a pound of chicken and 100 times more than a pound of carrots, according to Lantmannen, the Swedish group.

But any suggestion to eat less meat may run into resistance in a world with more carnivores and a booming global livestock industry. Meat producers have taken issue with the United Nations' estimate of livestock-related emissions, saying the figure is inflated because it includes the deforestation in the Amazon, a phenomenon that the Brazilian producers say might have occurred anyway.

United Nations scientists defend their accounting. With so much demand for meat, "you do slash rain forest," said Pierre Gerber, a senior official at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Soy cultivation has doubled in Brazil during the past decade, and more than half is used for animal feed.

Laurence Wrixon, executive director of the International Meat Secretariat, said that his members were working with the Food and Agriculture Organization to reduce emissions but that the main problem was fast-rising consumption in developing countries. "So whether you like it or not, there's going to be rising demand for meat, and our job is to make it as sustainable as possible," he said.

Estimates of emissions from agriculture as a percentage of all emissions vary widely from country to country, but they are clearly over 50 percent in big agricultural and meat-producing countries like Brazil, Australia and New Zealand.

In the United States, agriculture accounted for just 7.4 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in 2006, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The percentage was lower because the United States produces extraordinarily high levels of emissions in other areas, like transportation and landfills, compared with other nations. The figure also did not include fuel burning and land-use changes.

Wealthy, environmentally conscious countries with large livestock sectors — the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and New Zealand — have started experimenting with solutions.

In Denmark, by law, farmers now inject manure under the soil instead of laying it on top of the fields, a process that enhances its fertilizing effect, reduces odors and also prevents emissions from escaping. By contrast, in many parts of the developing world, manure is left in open pools and lathered on fields.

Others suggest including agriculture emissions in carbon cap-and-trade systems, which currently focus on heavy industries like cement making and power generation. Farms that produce more than their pre-set limit of emissions would have to buy permits from greener colleagues to pollute.

New Zealand recently announced that it would include agriculture in its new emissions trading scheme by 2013. To that end, the government is spending tens of millions of dollars financing research and projects like breeding cows that produce less gas and inventing feed that will make cows belch less methane, said Philip Gurnsey of the Environment Ministry.

At the electricity-from-manure project here in Sterksel, the refuse from thousands of pigs is combined with local waste materials (outdated carrot juice and crumbs from a cookie factory), and pumped into warmed tanks called digesters. There, resident bacteria release the natural gas within, which is burned to generate heat and electricity.

The farm uses 25 percent of the electricity, and the rest is sold to a local power provider. The leftover mineral slurry is an ideal fertilizer that reduces the use of chemical fertilizers, whose production releases a heavy dose of carbon dioxide.

For this farm the scheme has provided a substantial payback: By reducing its emissions, it has been able to sell carbon credits on European markets. It makes money by selling electricity. It gets free fertilizer.

And, in a small country where farmers are required to have manure trucked away, it saves $190,000 annually in disposal fees. John Horrevorts, experiment coordinator, whose family has long raised swine, said that dozens of such farms had been set up in the Netherlands, though cost still makes it impractical for small piggeries. Indeed, one question that troubles green farmers is whether consumers will pay more for their sustainable meat.

"In the U.K., supermarkets are sometimes asking about green, but there's no global system yet," said Bent Claudi Lassen, chairman of the Danish Bacon and Meat Council, which supports green production. "We're worried that other countries not producing in a green way, like Brazil, could undercut us on price."

Previous Page 1 | 2

From hoof to dinner table, a new bid to cut emissions

The cows and pigs dotting these flat green plains in the southern Netherlands create a bucolic landscape. But looked at through the lens of greenhouse gas accounting, they are living smokestacks, spewing methane emissions into the air.

That is why a group of farmers-turned-environmentalists here at a smelly but impeccably clean research farm have a new take on making a silk purse from a sow's ear: They cook manure from their 3,000 pigs to capture the methane trapped within it, and then use the gas to make electricity for the local power grid.

Rising in the fields of the environmentally conscious Netherlands, the Sterksel project is a rare example of fledgling efforts to mitigate the heavy emissions from livestock. But much more needs to be done, scientists say, as more and more people are eating more meat around the world.

What to do about farm emissions is one of the main issues being discussed this week and next, as the environment ministers from 187 nations gather in Poznan, Poland, for talks on a new treaty to combat global warming. In releasing its latest figure on emissions last month, United Nations climate officials cited agriculture and transportation as the two sectors that remained most "problematic."

"It's an area that's been largely overlooked," said Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He says people should eat less meat to control their carbon footprints. "We haven't come to grips with agricultural emissions."

The trillions of farm animals around the world generate 18 percent of the emissions that are raising global temperatures, according to United Nations estimates, more even than from cars, buses and airplanes.

But unlike other industries, like cement making and power, which are facing enormous political and regulatory pressure to get greener, large-scale farming is just beginning to come under scrutiny as policy makers, farmers and scientists cast about for solutions.

High-tech fixes include those like the project here, called "methane capture," as well as inventing feed that will make cows belch less methane, which traps heat with 25 times the efficiency of carbon dioxide. California is already working on a program to encourage systems in pig and dairy farms like the one in Sterksel.

Other proposals include everything from persuading consumers to eat less meat to slapping a "sin tax" on pork and beef. Next year, Sweden will start labeling food products so that shoppers can look at how much emission can be attributed to serving steak compared with, say, chicken or turkey.

"Of course for the environment it's better to eat beans than beef, but if you want to eat beef for New Year's, you'll know which beef is best to buy," said Claes Johansson, chief of sustainability at the Swedish agricultural group Lantmannen.

But such fledgling proposals are part of a daunting game of catch-up. In large developing countries like China, India and Brazil, consumption of red meat has risen 33 percent in the last decade. It is expected to double globally between 2000 and 2050. While the global economic downturn may slow the globe's appetite for meat momentarily, it is not likely to reverse a profound trend.

Of the more than 2,000 projects supported by the United Nations' "green" financing system intended to curb emissions, only 98 are in agriculture. There is no standardized green labeling system for meat, as there is for electric appliances and even fish.

Indeed, scientists are still trying to define the practical, low-carbon version of a slab of bacon or a hamburger. Every step of producing meat creates emissions.

Flatus and manure from animals contain not only methane, but also nitrous oxide, an even more potent warming agent. And meat requires energy for refrigeration as it moves from farm to market to home.

Producing meat in this ever-more crowded world requires creating new pastures and planting more land for imported feeds, particularly soy, instead of relying on local grazing. That has contributed to the clearing of rain forests, particularly in South America, robbing the world of crucial "carbon sinks," the vast tracts of trees and vegetation that absorb carbon dioxide.

"I'm not sure that the system we have for livestock can be sustainable," said Pachauri of the United Nations. A sober scientist, he suggests that "the most attractive" near-term solution is for everyone simply to "reduce meat consumption," a change he says would have more effect than switching to a hybrid car.

1 | Next Page 2

Greenpeace ship Esperanza in Jakarta as part of Forests for Climate initiative

Jakarta, Indonesia —

The Greenpeace ship Esperanza arrived in Jakarta on the morning of October 29th to help launch the Forests for Climate initiative, Greenpeace’s pioneering solution to reduce deforestation, tackle climate change, preserve global biodiversity, and protect the livelihoods of millions of forest-dependent people. Forests for Climate (FFC) is Greenpeace’s landmark proposal for an international mechanism to fund sustainable and lasting reductions of emissions from tropical deforestation in participating countries in order to meet commitments for the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol.

The first step of the initiative involves matching developed countries working to address the problems of deforestation and global warming to real projects in developing forested countries. Thus Greenpeace invited representatives from key donor countries and donor agencies as well as various government officials and governors of several Indonesian provinces to discuss the FFC initiative at a well-attended launch event, which took place at Tanjung Priok, Jakarta’s port area. The event was hosted jointly by Greenpeace and Rachmat Witoelar, the State Minister of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia.

“Indonesia’s government and society have a responsibility to protect its tropical forests for the sake of the environment, the country’s development, and to prevent the worsening impacts of climate change. It is time for Indonesia to gain the right to funding from industrialized countries to protect one of the world’s lungs," said Witoelar.

“Indonesia’s rampant deforestation and fast rising greenhouse gas emissions have been driven by the lure of short term profit. Greenpeace’s Forests for Climate mechanism is the solution as it places a value on keeping the forests alive,” said Arief Wicaksono, a political advisor at Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

How Forests for Climate Works

Under the FFC mechanism, industrialized countries that commit to reduce their emissions would fund protection of the world’s last remaining tropical forests. Developing countries with tropical forests, like Indonesia, which chose to participate and who commit to protect their forests would have the opportunity to receive funding for capacity-building efforts and for national-level reductions in deforestation emissions. FFC prevents deforestation from shifting from one country to the next and is the only mechanism that involves local and indigenous forest peoples’ representatives to ensure their rights and livelihoods are respected.

Greenpeace is pushing for the FFC mechanism to become part of the second phase of the Kyoto agreement on climate change. If countries commit to FFC, funding from industrialized countries for the protection of tropical forests could become available as soon as 2009.

“Indonesia’s remaining forests must be protected to combat climate change, stop biodiversity loss and protect the livelihoods of forest-dependent peoples. First, we need an immediate moratorium on deforestation, followed by international funding through the United Nations to protect forests for their carbon value,” concluded State Minister of Environment Wicaksono.

The Esperanza heads to Riau after its stop in Jakarta. Greenpeace embarked on the Indonesian leg of its Forests for Climate ship tour in Jayapura on October 6 to shine the spotlight on the rampant destruction of the Paradise Forests – the last remaining ancient forests of Southeast Asia.

Greenpeace is calling on the Indonesian government to implement an immediate moratorium on all forest conversion, including expansion of oil palm plantations, industrial logging, and other drivers of deforestation.

California's Global-Warming Solution

After dinner one recent night, family an friends were discussing their views on global warming. With clarity and wisdom beyond her 15 years, my daughter said, "Dad, I'm scared and angry. Your generation created this problem. What are you going to do to fix it?"

California's legislators rolled up their sleeves last week and got started on an answer, passing the most important legislation of the year, possibly of the decade: the California Global Warming Solutions Act. With any luck, its cooling effects will be felt for the rest of the century--and beyond.

Though confronted with a growing climate crisis, the nation has struggled to find scalable, society-wide solutions--and the political will to enact them. When seven Northeastern states capped emissions of greenhouse gases by utilities last month, we took a giant step forward. But until last week, no American state had been bold enough to approve legislation that caps emissions across all the meaningful economic sectors. California--where 1 of 8 Americans lives--will now require major industrial producers of such gases to reduce emissions 25% by 2020. That means cutting the annual release of carbon dioxide in the state by 174 million metric tons. It takes a forest twice the size of New Jersey to process that much of the heat-trapping gas.

How will we achieve that? By letting free markets discover the best solutions and invest in them. Create a market for carbon removal, and set limits on companies' allowance for carbon emissions. Companies that pollute less get credits and can then sell those credits to other companies, who buy them to offset their excess carbon. A similar market system for sulfur dioxide is already in place to cut sulfur pollution in half by 2010, dramatically reducing acid rain.

That "cap-and-trade" approach works because it provides certainty--companies have a specific greenhouse-gas-emission target--and because free markets are the most efficient way to reward innovation. A market-based system has two added benefits: it creates new revenue sources for companies clean enough to sell credits, and it enables free markets to determine the best solutions instead of having governments bet on what they think are going to be the winning innovations. That vision is one reason a Republican Governor and a Democratic legislature were able to agree on the global-warming act and many business leaders--including Silicon Valley entrepreneur turned environmental activist Bob Epstein--got behind it.

The economic benefits are large and calculable. In California, the world's sixth largest economy, the Climate Action Team determined that global-warming reduction would increase income by more than $4 billion while providing 83,000 new jobs. Growth will come from several sources: innovative green technologies will create high-quality jobs and new revenue streams. In addition, companies will have increased purchasing power once they decrease energy costs and reduce imports of fossil fuels. The notion that businesses will leave the state is flawed because all suppliers that sell to California are affected, not only California-based suppliers. The doomsayers just don't get it: we can harmonize economic growth and environmental benefits.

Plan B — How to Stop Global Warming

It's called eco-anxiety — free-form worry triggered by concerns about the worsening fate of the planet — and if you suffer from it, you might want to give Lester Brown's new book, Plan B 3.0, a pass. Brown — the president of the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington-based environmental think tank — paints a comprehensive and depressing picture of the planet, with ream after ream of dire statistics. Here's just a handful: Arctic summer sea ice shrinkage increased by 9.1% a decade between 1979 and 2006, and this year an area of ice almost twice the size of Britain melted in a single week. In an era of unprecedented global economic growth, the number of hungry people increased from 800 million to 830 million between 1996 and 2003. At current rates of logging, the natural forests of Indonesia and Burma will be gone within a decade or so. Each year the number of failing states increases — Sudan and Somalia today, perhaps Pakistan tomorrow — a trend that climate change will only worsen. Global demands on the Earth already exceed sustainable capacity by 25% — and we're set to add another 3 billion people by 2050. As Brown writes: "Civilization is in trouble."


But take a few deep breaths and relax — a little bit. Brown, one of the U.S.'s most respected environmentalists, has a plan — and it's called Plan B. (Hear Brown talk about Plan B 3.0 in this week's Greencast.) After detailing just how screwed our overpopulated, overconsuming world is — thanks to an economic system that rewards production without regard for environmental impact — Brown lays out an alternate path that could save us from the worst consequences of climate change. At the heart is a call to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions 80% by 2020 — far more aggressive than anything you'll hear from political leaders or even most activists. It's an ambitious plan, one that is less concerned with political feasibility than the survivability of the planet. "This is not Plan A, business as usual," Brown writes. "This is Plan B — a wartime mobilization, an all-out response proportionate to the threat that global warming presents to our future."

The key to Brown's Plan B is winding down our dependence on coal — the carbon-heavy fuel that the people over at the environmental website Grist like to refer to as "the enemy of the human race." Right now the world is on pace to build hundreds of new coal power plants over the coming decades, adding vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and if that happens the fight against global warming is as good as lost. Brown argues that rapid action to improve energy efficiency, develop renewable sources of power and expand the Earth's forest cover could reduce carbon emissions enough to allow us to phase out coal power and meet that 80% target.

The numbers are simple. It's easy to ridicule the "switch a light bulb, save the planet" school of environmental planning, but Brown points out that by making the most of efficiency improvements in lighting and appliances, we could reduce power demand sufficiently to obviate the need for 1,410 coal plants. That's more than the 1,382 coal plants the International Energy Agency predicts will be built by 2020. If we start pumping out new wind turbines with the same industrial urgency the U.S. produced tanks and bombers in World War II, Brown writes, we could generate 3 million megawatts of wind power by 2020, enough to meet 40% of the world's energy needs. Solar thermal, plug-in hybrid and geothermal technology are all part of Plan B. (Did you know that the geothermal energy contained in the upper six miles of the Earth's crust is 50,000 times more powerful than all of our oil and natural gas? Brown does.)

To push the transition to a cleaner, more efficient economy — the Plan B economy — Brown argues for a worldwide carbon tax to be phased in at $20 per ton each year between 2008 and 2020, topping out at $240 per ton. That might seem excessive, but Brown points out that even a carbon tax higher than $240 per ton wouldn't cover all the environmental and health costs of burning fossil fuels, from climate change to air pollution–related illnesses. And while it's difficult to imagine any politician standing up for such a tax, he reminds us that we already have a precedent for a heavy tax that takes into account negative externalities and attempts to discourage consumption: cigarette taxes.

Altogether Brown calculates that his Plan B would cost the world an additional $190 billion a year. That might seem high, until he compares the price tag to the global military budget, which stands at more than $1.2 trillion. All we have to do is find the political and popular will to implement the plan. But that's the problem. Brown's proposals are solid, but the real battle over climate change is now political, not technological, and it's one that too many environmentalists tend to discount. If you've drunk the green Kool-Aid, it can seem frustratingly obvious why we need a $240 carbon tax, or why the climate change challenge is on par with World War II, and thus demands Rosie the Riveter redux. But the true, painstaking challenge of the next few years will be building a broad political coalition that will support that level of commitment. Brown's Plan B is a great blueprint for combating climate change, but we might need a Plan C to put it into action.

Top Five “No Regrets” Policies

1.) Eliminate all subsidies to fuel use.
Subsidies to energy R&D cost taxpayers millions of dollars while producing minimal benefits. While these programs may be relatively small given the size of domestic energy markets, they serve little, if any, useful purpose while subsidizing large corporations at taxpayer expense. The potential threat of global warming, whether it is real or not, is simply one more reason to eliminate these subsidy programs. An international agreement aimed at ending energy subsidy with binding targets would be a significant victory for emissions reduction. Unlike Kyoto, which forces an energy starvation diet on its participants, such a treaty would be a move to combat energy obesity.

2.) Repeal the Federal Flood Insurance Program.
Much of the concern over global warming's potential for harm in the US relates to sea level rise and the flooding that will result. However, much of the investment in potentially vulnerable areas is a result of the Federal flood Insurance Program. This program encourages building in vulnerable areas by acting as a moral hazard: people take greater risks because the government has said it will help bear that risk. Reform would reduce the moral hazard connected with building on vulnerable land, transferring the risk from the taxpayer to the private sector, which is likely to take a more realistic view of the issue.

3.) Reform Air Traffic Control Systems.
Greater demand for air travel means more flights, which means greater fuel use and increased emissions. Yet, the current government-operated system of air traffic control, based on a 1920s-era system of beacons, may hinder innovations that could reduce fuel use and emissions. As a general rule, the shorter the flight, the less fuel will be consumed. Yet neither airlines nor pilots have the freedom to choose the most direct and economical route. Giving pilots freedom to map their own course is an attractive and desirable change in the eyes of the industry, and the impact on the environment would be tremendous. As well as saving considerable amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, the policy will deliver significant benefits in terms of time and expense to the US economy. By obviating significant reductions in service levels associated with more routine applications of emissions reduction policy, it is to be preferred to that approach.

4.) Facilitate Electricity Competition.
By rejecting the model of central regulation and allowing suppliers to meet their customers' needs more exactly while relying on distributed generation, energy waste and the associated emissions will reduce considerably. This reduction in waste will prove economically beneficial even if emissions themselves do not cause problems.

5.) Reduce Regulatory Barriers to New Nuclear Build.
There is no other technology than nuclear that is proven to be capable of providing emissions-free energy at the scale required to make significant reductions in carbon emissions. The problem is that thanks to anti-nuclear activism by environmentalists in the 1970s, it takes a very long time to build a nuclear plant. This pushes development and construction costs up to the level where it is not economically competitive with higher-emitting forms of electricity generation like coal and natural gas. According to the nuclear energy institute, it takes 10 years from concept to operation to build a nuclear plant, and only four of those are construction, the rest is permit application development (2 years) and decision-making by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (4 years).

Global Warming: What Can We Do?

Writing about global warming has changed a lot in the past few years. This is not because the science itself has changed – but because political reaction to it has. It seems that we have, at long last, moved beyond denial and inertia. The time for books that explain what global warming is and why it matters has come and gone. The need now is for answers to the one question that really mattered all along: What do we do about it? Two current books examine the evidence and come up with a series of similar proposals. Each is coauthored by a prominent scientist and an accomplished science journalist and both make worthy additions to global-warming literature. But they go about it in very different ways.

Some environmental activists may be tempted to stop and savor for a moment the fact that the Bush administration and its climate obstructionists will soon be gone. But make it a brief moment, warn Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King, authors of The Hot Topic: What We Can Do About Global Warming. The long moment we've already taken between the first realization that burning fossil fuels would cause dangerous warming and our present state of modest concern have cost us.

Thanks to political foot-dragging and ever-increasing carbon emissions, they say, the best we can hope for now is to avert worst-case scenarios.

Sir David, a chemist at Cambridge University and chief science adviser to the British government, is famous for his 2004 statement that climate change is "the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism." So perhaps it's not surprising that this book conveys a sense of urgency. The authors' tone is chummy, but their focus is clearly on facts, analysis, and implications.


STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE
They start with a capsule review of climate-change science. Their primary focus, however, is on technological and political strategies for controlling emissions and adapting to inevitable change. The proposed solutions are numerous and not terribly new. But they are pragmatic, well described, and convincing.

If "Hot Topic" is a concise guide to the world of climate change, then Fixing Climate: What Past Climate Changes Reveal About the Current Threat – And How to Counter It is a slow and gentle travelogue. Written by journalist Robert Kunzig and renowned Columbia University climate scientist Wallace Broecker, "Fixing Climate" is as much Broecker's scientific memoir as it is a call to action. (The biographical material isn't necessary to understanding global warming, but it's a wonderful look at a life in science nonetheless.)

The authors wend their way through a good deal of the history of climate-science research – a fair amount of it over the past five decades conducted by Broecker or his close associates – in a measured, graceful manner. But in step with the intensification of global warming itself, the pace and urgency of "Fixing Climate" increases significantly toward the end.

In a chapter provocatively entitled "Green Is Not Enough," Broecker and Kunzig make a convincing case that all the energy efficiency and conservation in the world, all the biofuels and carbon trading and climate treaties we can come up with, are not going to be enough to avoid very serious climate-change impacts.

"If we are to avoid dangerously warming the planet," Broecker and Kunzig write, "we need to figure out how to build the equivalent of a sewage system for carbon dioxide."

Kunzig and Broecker spend their last several chapters discussing carbon sequestration – technology for removing CO2 from smokestacks, and from the atmosphere itself, and storing it out of harm's way, underground or in the deep sea. No retreat from responsibility.

However, "the most fundamental lesson to be drawn from the whole [global warming] episode, write Broecker and Kunzig, "is that we can no longer expect Mother Earth to take care of us – the planet is ours to run, and we can't retreat from our responsibility to run it wisely."

The precise mix of approaches used might differ somewhat between the two writing teams. But taken together, these two books move us from the debate as to whether we should take real action on global warming to a clear blueprint for doing so.

What we can do?

Climate Change is the most serious problem we face in the 21st century. Future generations are depending on us to do whatever we can to turn things around. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a group of over two thousand scientists, has concluded that global warming is beyond dispute, and already changing our climate. The last 30 years have seen the warmest surface temperatures in recorded history, and the NOAA has recently predicted 2007 will be the warmest year on record. Scientists have concluded that human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is the major driving factor in global warming. read: how global warming has developed Global warming can be slowed, and stopped, with practical actions that yield a cleaner, healthier atmosphere. The question is: will we act soon enough. It is a matter of time. "Many people don't realize that we are committed right now to a significant amount of global warming and sea level rise," said Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "The longer we wait to do something about it, the more change we will have." Ultimately it is up to each of us, as individuals and families, to take action to slow down and eventually reverse global warming through everyday awareness of our energy use and attention to ways we can conserve electricity and minimize fossil fuel usage.
What we can do The goal is to bring global warming under control by curtailing the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases into the atmosphere. We can contribute to this global cause with personal actions. Our individual efforts are especially significant in countries like the US and Canada, where individuals release 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per person every year. We can help immediately by becoming more energy efficient. Reducing our use of oil, gasoline and coal also sets an example for others to follow. Reduce electricity usage around the home The largest source of greenhouse gases is electric power generation. The average home actually contributes more to global warming than the average car. This is because much of the energy we use in our homes comes from power plants which burn fossil fuel to power our electric products. To reduce the amount of electricity used in our homes:
	switch to energy-efficient lighting - Replace the familiar incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. For each CFL bulb replacement, you'll lower your energy bill and keep nearly 700 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the air over the bulb's lifetime. CFL bulbs last much longer and use only a quarter of the energy consumed by conventional bulbs. LED bulbs are also energy-saving, but have a narrower range of application. Advances in LED bulb technology, however, are leading to more applications for these bulbs in the home. LEDs are more efficient than CFLs and do not have issues surrounding disposal, as do the CFLs. more info improve the efficiency of home appliances - Home appliances vary greatly in terms of energy-efficiency and operating costs. The more energy-efficient an appliance is, the less it costs to run. You can lower your utility bill and help protect the environment. here's how buy energy-efficient appliances - When shopping for a new appliance - especially a major appliance such as a refrigerator, dishwasher, or air-conditioner - select the one with the highest energy efficiency rating. By opting for a refrigerator with the Energy Star label -- indicating it uses at least 15 percent less energy than the federal requirement -- you can reduce carbon dioxide pollution by nearly a ton in total. more info reduce energy needed for heating - According to the U.S. Department of Energy, heating and cooling systems in the U.S. emit over a half billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. Much of the energy used for heating our homes is wasted, and yet the prevention is, in many cases, simple and inexpensive. here's how reduce energy needed for cooling - Air conditioners alone use up to 1/6th of the electricity in the U.S. and, on hot summer days, consume 43% of the U.S. peak power load. You can reduce much of the need for air conditioning, and enjoy a cost savings benefit, by using 'passive' techniques to help cool your home. here's how
Improve vehicle fuel-efficiency The second largest source of greenhouse gases is transportation. Motor vehicles are responsible for about a third of all carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. and Canada.
	practice fuel-efficient driving - Every gallon of gasoline burned puts 26 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. You can boost the overall fuel-efficiency of your car as much as 30% by simple vehicle maintenance and attention to your style of driving. read these tips for fuel-efficient driving. buy a fuel-efficient car - Even more important is the choice of car or truck you buy. If you buy a new car that gets 10 more miles per gallon than your old car, the amount of carbon dioxide reduction realized in one year will be about 2,500 pounds. The new hybrid cars, using efficient gas-electric engines, can cut global warming pollution by 30% or more. learn more about hybrid cars. recycle air conditioner coolant - If your car has an air conditioner, make sure you recycle its coolant whenever you have it serviced. You can save thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide each year by doing this. drive less - You'll save energy by taking the bus, riding a bike, or walking. Try consolidating trips to the mall or longer routine drives. Encourage car-pooling.
Conserve energy in the home and yard Yard maintenance contributes significantly to greenhouse emissions. Per hour of operation, a power lawn mower emits 10-12 times as much hydrocarbon as a typical auto. A weedeater emits 21 times more and a leaf blower 34 times more.
	reduce lawn size - Lawn size can be reduced by adding shrubs, beds, ground covers and mulched areas. Try creating a lawn area small enough to be mowed using an efficient reel (push) mower. Lawn edging can be set low enough to mow over, reducing or eliminating the need for a weed-eater. more info recycle whenever possible - aluminum cans, newspapers, magazines, cardboard, glass - anything recycled reduces the energy needed to create new products. To find the recycling center nearest you, call: 1 800-CLEANUP. For ideas on home recycling, click here for more info. eat locally produced food - Today, the food choices available in supermarkets come from all over the world. All of this 'traffic' in food requires staggering amounts of fuel - generally by refrigerated airplanes or transport trucks. Food transportation is one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions. more info eat vegetarian meals - Vegetarian food requires much less energy to produce. Enjoying vegetarian meals once or twice a week results in significant CO2 savings. more info paint your home a light color if you live in a warm climate, or a dark color in a cold climate. This can contribute saving up to 5000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. choose clean energy options - If you can choose your electricity supplier, pick a company that generates at least half its power from wind, solar energy and other renewable sources. buy clean energy certificates and carbon offsets - Help spur the renewable energy market and cut global warming pollution with "wind certificates" or "green tags," which represent clean power you can add to the nation's energy grid in place of electricity from fossil fuels. more info A “carbon offset” is an emission reduction credit which can be purchased by individuals, businesses and governments to reduce their net greenhouse gas emissions. more info
While it may be difficult to adopt some of these suggestions, any amount of energy saved is significant. Even small changes are worthwhile, as they spark our awareness. As we become more aware of the importance of saving energy, we find ways of saving where possible. Making energy conservation a part of our daily awareness is essential to the goal of reducing global warming.

How to Take Action to Reduce Global Warming

1. 
   Get educated. Educate yourself about global warming. The more facts you have as to what mainstream science says about it, the more you can persuade others to make simple but effective changes in daily behavior. Energy-saving techniques are either initially expensive (for example, solar power), or take extra time (for example, recycling), so many people need convincing that their efforts matter. Always keep in mind that you are aiming to demonstrate the benefits of these activities and highlight how each person can play a vital role in helping to reduce global warming; if we were to reduce the amount of light and appliances we use that would just be one step closer to revolving globel warming. Equally remember that "[c]ivil society does not respond at all well to moralistic scolding." Use education to enlighten, not frighten.
2. Vote and influence your government with phone calls, e-mails, letters and meetings with those who represent you in government. Learn as much as possible about the policies you advocate before doing so; solving one problem often creates others. For example, new legislation banning incandescent light bulbs and advocating compact fluorescents has introduced a hazard of mercury contamination in landfills and in homes that use them. The push to grow corn for ethanol has contributed to higher prices for many food staples.
3. Choose vegetarian or vegan meals. Livestock are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than transportation is. This is due to the large amounts of petroleum used in creating amonium nitrate fertilizer (for the corn they are fed) plus the cost of shipping that corn to the cattle and then shipping the cattle to slaughter and grocery. If one eats meat it should always be from a local source. Choosing vegetarian foods also drastically reduces agricultural water consumption and land use, and favorably impacts biodiversity. Vegetarian diets have been shown to promote good health and in most developed countries, eliminating meat from one's diet is as easy as making responsible choices at stores and restaurants. Other factors such as the means of production and distance food travels can also influence the total impact of our food choices.
4. 
   Recycle more. 15-25% of people don't recycle. Recycle more using recycling bins, composting, etc. Encourage neighbors, superintendents, colleagues and businesses to do likewise.
5. 
   Use compact fluorescent bulbs. Replace three frequently used light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs/lamps and save 300 lbs. of carbon dioxide and US$60 per year. A standard compact fluorescent bulb will save around one third of a tonne of greenhouse gas, along with the cost of six or more incandescent globes. Consider using more, and give them as gifts to family and friends. Consider donating a set to a local charity to refit their office with compact fluorescent lights. Remember, CFL bulbs do contain small amounts of toxic mercury. Therefore, proper disposal (recycling) is necessary to prevent any additional landfill contamination.
6. 
   Fill the dishwasher. Run your dishwasher only with a full load. Save 100 lbs. of carbon dioxide and US$40 per year, or do them by hand with minimal water.
7. 
   Use recycled paper. Make sure your printer paper is 100% post consumer recycled paper. Save 5 lbs. of carbon dioxide per ream of paper. Decide if something is really worth printing out. Leave a signature at the bottom of your e-mails reminding the reader to think twice before printing the e-mail. Make the most of scrap paper for shopping lists, notes, scrapbooks, school and college note-taking etc. Only recycle your paper when it has been thoroughly used up!
8. 
   Buy locally made and locally grown products. Buy locally to reduce the energy required to transport your goods. The consumable products we all purchase represent over half of the average family's carbon footprint! If you successfully encourage neighbors to do this, store owners will be encouraged to stock local goods. Shop at farmers' markets.
9. Count your carbon. Keep track of your carbon consumption as a way of tracking your progress.
   
   
   • 
     There is a logo called Carbon Counted that companies can put on their products to communicate their carbon footprint. Buying products that have a low Carbon Counted footprint number gives consumers a means by which to influence and reward companies that reduce emissions in the creation of their products.
   • 
     Use a carbon calculator. These counters enable you to calculate your personal impact by adding up the carbon emissions from your activities. There are counters available for many countries; use your local search engine for results. An international calculator is provided by the World Resources Institute.
   • 
     Support producers of renewable energy. Help spur the renewable energy market by participating in it. In the UK you can get 100% renewable electricity by switching to a company such as Ecotricity or Good Energy Ltd. Or you can do so by buying wind certificates, green tags and stock in renewable energy companies. Many of these companies are new and small and the stock is low in price. While may are high-risk, they may present an opportunity to help the company move beyond the initial stages of uncertainty and to enhance the viability of important, upcoming market niches. These companies may offer opportunities for great returns if they prove profitable; just be sure to do your homework first, as you would when investing in anything.
10. 
    Buy minimally packaged goods. Less packaging could reduce your garbage significantly, saving 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide and $1,000 per year. If you consider a certain products' packaging to be excessive, mail it to the company with your challenge to the company to reduce its packaging; include suggestions on how if you have ideas. And while you're at it, feel free to let companies know that if Wal-Mart thinks reduced packaging is not only a good idea but very achievable, then this is likely to set the standard for many businesses in the future.
11. Insulate.
    
    
    • 
      Keeping your water heater insulated could save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and US$40 per year. Don't use units fitted with continuous pilot lights and you will save AUD$40 and 200 kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions yearly. Also, use less hot water. For example, if the shower is too cold, don't turn up the hot water but turn down the cold water.
    • 
      Be energy wise and insulate your entire home to keep down the heating and cooling costs. If your insulation is old or inefficient, do yourself a favor and replace it; not only will it reduce your output of emissions but it'll reduce your energy bills considerably. Consider the attic, crawlspaces, basement, walls and ceiling. If you have awkward spaces, don't forget that cellulose or fiberglass insulation can be blown in by a professional contractor.
12. Replace old appliances and reduce reliance on them.
    
    
    • 
      Inefficient appliances such as fridges, washing machines etc., waste energy. Save hundreds of pounds of carbon dioxide and hundreds of dollars per year by replacing them (and having your old appliance recycled or disposed of properly). Many countries have "energy star" ratings on new appliances that allow you to assess the energy usage of the appliance. You may even be able to check online before you go shopping, to save time. If this isn't an option, at least check the seals on your fridge or freezer and replace them if they show signs of wear.
    • 
      While you're at it, reassess appliances that you really do not need to use, such as plug-in air fresheners. Try opening the windows instead (and throwing out that rotting fruit bowl) and replace with natural air freshener alternatives. Other items include the many so-called time-saving devices in your kitchen;
13. 
    Weather strip your home. Caulk and weather strip your doorways, windows and air conditioners. Save 1,700 lbs. of carbon dioxide and US$274 per year. You will discover that the costs of caulking are far outweighed by savings in fuel costs and increased comfort level.
14. 
    Use a push mower and reduce the lawn. Use your muscles instead of fossil fuels and get some strength-building exercise. Save 80 lbs of carbon dioxide per year.
15. 
    Unplug unused electronics. Even when electronic devices are turned off, they use energy. Save over 1,000 lbs of carbon dioxide and US$256 per year by unplugging them or switching them off at the wall using a power surge-protector (sometimes called a power center). Get into the habit of switching the power off before you go to bed.
16. 
    Grow fast growing plants. Plants like bamboo grow faster and produce 35% more oxygen than trees like oak or birch, and require fewer chemicals and care. Make sure that the plants are appropriate for your area; prefer native over introduced species and do not plant problem species. Bamboo, for example, can be very invasive in most of the US.
17. 
    Use public transportation. Taking the bus, the train, the subway or other forms of public transportation lessens the load on the roads and reduces one's individual greenhouse gas emissions (an average of 1600 pounds of GHG emissions per year can be saved). Taking public transport removes the stress of long road commutes and gives you a great opportunity to read, think and relax. You also save on parking money and time wasted looking for parks.
18. 
    Ride a bicycle. Taking the bike instead of the car is a very simple solution. However, if you experience such problems as lack of suitable bike paths, having to deal with congested traffic or hilly terrain, you are faced with a few challenges. They are, however, challenges that you as an individual can overcome with a little determination.
    
    
    • Ask your municipality, city or local government to start making bike trails in your area and to make sure that bicyclists are kept safe from traffic in the same way that pedestrians are afforded this right. Get the local community behind you - a few neighbors, the street or the whole suburb!
    • If you have hilly terrain, there are solutions as well. Build up your strength with shorter trips, find alternate routes, or take a bus part way (many municipal buses have bike racks on the front that you can use).
19. Use your vehicle as a tool against global warming. If you can't live without a car, then use it in a way that minimizes global impact.
    
    
    • 
      Buy a hybrid car. The average driver could save 16,000 lbs. of CO2 and $3,750 per year driving a hybrid. Plug-in hybrids can save even more and give cash-back (see V2G).
    • 
      Buy a fuel efficient car. Save up to 20,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year using a more fuel efficient car - that's a savings of AUD$10,000 over a car's lifetime. Buying fuel efficient cars also encourage companies to continue making and improving them owing to increased demand.
    • Practice green driving. Save gas and lower stress levels by being a considerate driver. Improve fuel efficiency by removing unused external objects such as roof racks, turning off your engine instead of idling for long periods of time (over 1 minute), and removing loads from the trunk/boot that are not necessary.
    • 
      Keep the tires on your car adequately inflated - under inflated tires can reduce fuel economy by up to 3% and increase wear and tear on your tires.^[24]Keep your car tires inflated. Check them monthly. Save 250 lbs. of carbon dioxide and US$840 per year. A good gift is a tire air-pressure gauge as it not only saves money but makes driving safer.
    • 
      Change your air filter. Check your car's air filter monthly. Save 800 pounds of carbon dioxide and US$130 per year. Cleaning your air filter improves your mileage and reduces pollution because it makes it easier for your car to take in air and maintain a proper fuel/air mixture.
20. Use Refills. Try using refills instead of buying new jars each time. This reduces your consumption and refills are usually cheaper too.