WASHINGTON, DC, October 1, 2008 (ENS) – Greenpeace and Ben & Jerry’s have jointly launched the first ice cream freezer using climate-friendly technology in the United States.

Ben & Jerry’s will be running trials of these hydrocarbon freezers in the Boston and DC areas while the company seeks approval for widespread commercial use from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Cooled with Greenfreeze technology, these units do not use the hydrofluorocarbons used by most freezers yet they are just as effective and 10 percent more energy-efficient.

Hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are potent greenhouse gases that, pound for pound, have 1,400 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas.

“This climate-safe freezer will keep pints of Chunky Monkey and Cherry Garcia as cold as ever, but it’s also going to help cool our planet,” said John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA.

An artist’s rendition of the new freezer
(Image courtesy Ben & Jerry’s)

“With hurricanes intensifying, tropical disease spreading, sea levels rising, and polar bears going extinct, we need to make sure that what cools our ice cream, drinks, and homes isn’t also melting the ice caps,” he said.

HFCs and other fluorinated gases are cumulatively responsible for 17 percent of the global warming pollution currently in the atmosphere.

“HFCs and other F-gases are the worst greenhouse gases you’ve never heard of,” said Greenpeace Solutions Director Amy Larkin. “Now, it’s up to other companies to follow Ben & Jerry’s lead and make climate-safe refrigeration as standard in the United States as it is elsewhere.”

In an effort to reduce the size of the annual Antarctic ozone hole, the chemical industry introduced HFCs as an alternative to ozone-destroying chemicals like Freon even though scientists warned that HFCs would still cause global warming.

To solve this problem, Greenpeace engineers developed a new climate-safe refrigeration technology known as Greenfreeze in 1992 and gave it away to any company that wanted it.

The technology was developed by two scientists, Professor Harry Rosin and Dr. Hans Preisendanz from the Institute of Hygiene in Dortmund, Germany, who were looking for a refrigerant which neither destroyed the ozone layer nor contributed to global warming. They settled on a mix of the hydrocarbons propane and butane.

Greenfreeze refrigerators use the hydrocarbons both for the blowing of the insulation foam and for the refrigerant. They are entirely free of ozone destroying and global warming chemicals.

“The beauty of Greenfreeze,” Dr. Preisendanz told the UNEP magazine “Our Planet,” back in 1996, “is that anyone can have the technology. It cannot be patented because all we have done is find the right mix of two existing common gases. The technology is totally free and can be used by the whole world, whether rich or poor, for a whole range of uses.”

“The irony is that the chemical industry also searched for a substitute for CFCs but only in one direction – to find substances they could patent.” he said.

In the spring of 1992, Greenpeace brought the two scientists together with an East German company, DKK Scharfenstein. The company had been producing refrigerators for 50 years and was the leading household appliance manufacturer in the former East Germany, but reunification brought severe economic problems and the company was due to be closed.

The meeting between the scientists and DKK Scharfenstein resulted in the birth of ‘Greenfreeze’ technology for domestic refrigeration. As Greepeace recounts on its website, when DKK Scharfenstein announced is intention to mass produce the new refrigerators, Greenpeace campaigned to gather tens of thousands of pre-orders from environmentally conscious German consumers. This public support secured the capital investment needed for the new Greenfreeze product, salvaged the company and saved the jobs of its workers.

Today, Greenfreeze technology is in use in more than 300 million refrigerators worldwide, but it was not allowed into the United States until earlier this year when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authorized Ben & Jerry’s to run a test trial of units equipped with Greenfreeze technology.

“It’s one small step for our business, and a giant leap for opening the door to prove that a more environmentally friendly refrigeration technology could work in the U.S. market,” said Walt Freese, Ben & Jerry’s chief executive. “The technology is commonplace in Europe with literally millions of home and commercial units in place.”

The Greenfreeze technology is also popular in Japan, and a Greenpeace Japan campaigner even won an award in 2007 from the U.S. EPA for environmental leadership in phasing out ozone depleting substances by lobbying for the production and use of Greenfreeze technology in that country.

In the late 1990s, Greenpeace Japan atmosphere campaigner Yasuko Matsumoto persuaded Japanese manufacturers to produce Greenfreeze refrigerators in Japan.

Matsumoto held a Greenfreeze exhibit for the business community, including the refrigeration industry; hosted seminars for Japanese companies with the cooperation of European companies; publicized the technology through the media; and conducted consumer activities such as a postcard campaign, which helped to create market pressure on Japanese home appliance companies to produce the Greenfreeze refrigerators.

Now Ben & Jerry’s has become the first company to test this environmentally friendly refrigerant in the United States. The company will test 50 freezers this fall, with approval to test up to 2,000 freezers in the next few years.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

BRUSSELS, Belgium, September 16, 2008 (ENS) – After poverty, climate change is the most serious problem Europe faces according to a Eurobarometer survey presented in the European Parliament on September 11.

The poll found that 61 percent of respondents have taken some personal action to cut emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. A quarter of those said they had changed their buying habits and used the car less to help the environment.

At the same time, the poll found that a majority believe that the people, governments, industry or the European Union are not doing enough about the warming climate.

The survey of over 30,000 people in 30 European countries found that 31 percent had not taken any action to change their behavior on account of the climate. Of those, almost half said they believe that government and industry should take action, while just over a third did not know what they should do.

The survey was conducted in all 27 EU member states as well as in the three candidate countries – Turkey, Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Those who have taken action said they believe it would make a difference, that they had a duty to protect the environment or were concerned about what they would leave for future generations.

Eurostar and Thalys high speed trains await
passengers at Paris Gare du Nord. (Photo
credit unknown)

Across Europe, 28 percent of respondents said they use greener transport and 27 percent buy seasonal and local products that reduce CO2 emissions.

The results were presented at a press conference in the European Parliament by Italian MEP Guido Sacconi, who chairs the parliament’s Temporary Committee on Climate Change.

“The fact that many Europeans say that they do not have enough information, in particular on the actions that citizens could take, clearly indicates that we have to think about initiatives and measures to spread this knowledge more widely, especially among the most vulnerable groups of our population,” said Sacconi. “The role of regional and local authorities in this task will be crucial.”

Sacconi noted differences in attitudes in different countries, saying he thought the responses of those polled depended on whether or not the country had experienced an ecological disaster.

He cited forest fires and droughts in Greece and Cyprus as two examples of countries where people’s ecological awareness had been raised by natural disasters.

Sweden is the country where most people have taken personal action to help reduce their C02 emissions, with 87 percent of respondents saying they have done something.

By comparison, 60 percent of people in Latvia and Lithuania said they have taken no action.

Royd Moor Wind Farm near Penistone,
South Yorkshire, England (Photo by Ian
Britton courtesy FreeFoto.com)

At the press conference, Europe’s Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas pointed to the stimulating effect that green industry could have on Europe’s economy. He noted that 56 percent of those polled believe that climate change can help the economy.

“Saving energy means saving money, so there is a common logic that citizens consider it to be beneficial for economy,” Dimas said.

He went on to say that “citizens have role to play both as consumers, by choosing to buy the right products, and as voters.”

By the end of this year, Europe’s Environment Ministers meeting in the Council along with elected MEPs should reach an agreement on a package of Europe-wide legislation that will help mitigate climate change.

Dimas called on MEPs and the Council of Ministers not to “dilute” the proposed measures.

Margot Wallstrom, vice-president of the European Commission and a former environment commissioner, said, “Surveys of this kind are important components in our policy-making. It is striking to see that European citizens take the issue of climate change so seriously and it confirms our belief that continued, coherent EU action in this area is imperative.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SEOUL, South Korea, July 28, 2008 (ENS) – The South Korean government has decided that selected products will carry labels in the marketplace to show the size of their carbon footprints. During the testing phase, just 10 products will get carbon labels, but if the program is successful, it will be used more widely.

The labels will show the amount of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide emitted during the products’ lifecycle – production, distribution, use and disposal of the goods, the Environment Ministry said Sunday.

Carbon dioxide is the most abundant heat-trapping greenhouse gas that is responsible for global warming.

LG Electronics washing machines have been
selected for carbon labeling. (Photo
credit unknown)

The ministry said testing will begin next month on the 10 products selected. They include a water purifier made by Woongjin, washing machines made by LG Electronics, CJ’s instant pre-cooked microwavable rice, a heater from Kyungdong, and LCD glass made by Samsung Corning Precision Glass.

Product validation inspections will be conducted next month, in order to grant final permission, the ministry said. The system will be officially introduced by January 2009.

The carbon labeling system has been implemented in places such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Sweden and Canada to enable businesses to demonstrate to consumers their commitment to managing and reducing carbon emissions.

Though mostly in use in the United Kingdom, a growing number of European retailers are exploring carbon labeling for products, and in the United States the labels are gaining ground.

Timberland was the first in the United States to place the tags on store shelves, and major corporations like Wal-Mart are conducting inventories of their products’ carbon emissions and considering labeling merchandise.

If the idea gains popularity in Korea, carbon labels will allow shoppers to choose the products with the smallest carbon footprints and permit them to compare locally produced with imported goods, organic products with traditionally farmed foods.

CJ precooked microwaveable rice will
receive a carbon label. (Photo
credit unknown)

Meanwhile, the South Korean Environment Ministry launched its Green Start campaign last Friday, an environmental action designed to promote the government’s initiative entitled “Low Carbon, Green Korea” that aims to reduce greenhouse gases in everyday life.

The ministry plans to organize “Green Start Network” in August in cooperation with the central government, local government entities, industries, religious groups and civic groups in order to promote the government’s “Green Start” carbon reduction campaign.

The group will establish and begin implementing a detailed plan of action by September, the ministry said.

Households, merchants and other non-industrial sectors account for 45 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in South Korea. Therefore, living a low-carbon lifestyle is considered a key to countering climate change.

The ministry plans to set up related programs to provide carbon reduction education at schools and incentives to environment-friendly firms.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

COLUMBIA, Missouri, June 29, 2008 (ENS) – Trees submerged in fresh water store carbon for thousands of years, keeping the carbon dioxide they absorbed while growing out of the atmosphere for a much longer period of time than trees that fall in a forest, researchers at the Missouri Tree Ring Laboratory in the Department of Forestry have discovered.

“If a tree is submerged in water, its carbon will be stored for an average of 2,000 years,” said Richard Guyette, director of the MU Tree Ring Lab and research associate professor of forestry in the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources.

“If a tree falls in a forest, that number is reduced to an average of 20 years, and in firewood, the carbon is only stored for one year,” he explained.

The research team studied trees in northern Missouri, a geographically unique area with a high level of streamside, or riparian, forests. They discovered submerged oak trees that were as old as 14,000 years, potentially some of the oldest discovered in the world.

Dr. Richard Guyette goes underwater
to learn more about carbon
storage and release. (Photo
courtesy MU Tree Ring Lab)

While a tree is alive, it has a high ability to store carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is a major contributor to global warming. Then as the tree falls and begins to decay, that carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere.

This carbon storage process is not just ancient; it continues today as additional trees become submerged, said Dr. Guyette.

“Carbon plays a huge role in climate change and information about where it goes will be very important someday soon,” said Michael Stambaugh, research associate in the MU Department of Forestry.

“The goal is to increase our knowledge of the carbon cycle, particularly its exchange between the biosphere and atmosphere,” he said. “We need to know where it goes and for how long in order to know how to offset its effects.”

The research team used tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating using the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 to document the distribution through time and carbon storage of oak wood in trees buried by streams and floodplains in northern Missouri.

The results showed that oak wood has been accumulating in Midwest streams continually since at least 14,000 years ago.

The median residence time of an oak bole in the study streams was 3,515 years.

More than 30 percent of sampled oak wood entered the floodplain sediments and stream waters within the last 1,000 years, and a few samples dated to the last 150 years.

“Recent human impacts on streams have altered the dynamics of oak input and sequestered carbon with unknown long-term consequences,” the researchers wrote in their study.

These findings document a continuous and long-term form of carbon storage that is sensitive to changes in climate and human activities that alter that patterns of flowing water.

Submerged trees could be a valuable source of income for landowners when a carbon emissions trading market becomes standard practice in the United States as it is today in Europe.

“Farmers can sell the carbon they have stored in their trees through a carbon credit stock market,” Guyette said. “Companies that emit excess of carbon would be able to buy carbon credits to offset their pollution.”

The study “The Temporal Distribution and Carbon Storage of Large Oak Wood in Streams and Floodplain Deposits” was published in the journal “Ecosystems.”

The findings were discussed this week at the First American Dendrochronology Conference – AmeriDendro 2008 – held at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. The primary focus of the conference is on tree-ring research in North and South America and its application in climatology, environmental sciences, archaeology, geology, resource management, and conservation.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

MONTREAL, Canada, June 19, 2008 (ENS) – The United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, has unveiled a carbon calculation tool on its website that allows travelers to estimate the carbon footprint for any flight they take. A carbon footprint is a measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide.

For instance, one passenger, flying economy class from New York’s John F. Kennedy International airport to Washington, DC, a distance of 212 miles, generates about 0.08 tons of carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.

By contrast, the same passenger, flying economy class from JFK International airport to Los Angeles, a distance of 2,466 miles, generates about 0.36 tons of carbon dioxide.

Once a traveler knows how much carbon dioxide is produced for a given flight, he or she can purchase offsets, such as funding renewable energy or planting trees.

Prices for offsets vary widely depending on the projects funded from about $4 per metric ton to $99 per metric ton. Compare offset prices at websites such as EcoBusinessLinks.com, which is not affiliated with ICAO.

Planes line up for take-off from John
F. Kennedy International Airport
in the New York metropolitan
area. (Photo credit unknown)

The carbon calculator uses only publicly available and verifiable information to make its calculations about the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from a flight. It takes into account such variables as aircraft type, route data, passenger load and the amount of cargo.

Roberto Kobeh Gonzalez, president of the ICAO Council, said the calculator should benefit both individuals and organizations and will improve as a tool as more technical and operational information becomes available.

“The carbon calculator responds to the wish of many travellers for a reliable and authoritative method to estimate the carbon footprint of a flight, so they can choose the program best suited to offset the impact of their trips on climate change according to the amount of carbon dioxide they are responsible for,” Kobeh said.

It was introduced Wednesday by the Montreal-based ICAO as part of efforts to support the UN Climate Neutral Initiative, which calls for all parts of the UN system to determine their total carbon emissions.

The new carbon calculator is being backed by the UN World Tourism Organization.

The International Air Transport Association is also recommending the methodology used in the carbon calculator to its member airlines for use in their carbon-offsetting programs, in part to achieve a more consistent approach to estimating the carbon footprint of flights.

Increasing information in the area of carbon, emissions trading and offsets is one of the objectives of ICAO’s first ever “Aviation and Carbon Markets Workshop” that was held yesterday and today in Montreal.

More than 200 participants of the forum met to explore opportunities for a global aviation carbon market.

Carbon markets are designed to combat climate change by putting a price on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Companies can trade the right to emit these gases through permits, credits, or allowances.

ICAO’s carbon calculator is online, click here [www2.icao.int].

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

LANSING, Michigan, April 22, 2008 (ENS) – Governor Jennifer Granholm today announced that Michigan will be joining the Climate Savers Computing Initiative to encourage the utilization of more energy efficient computers and servers in state offices and agencies.

With some 55,000 desktop computers and laptops and nearly 3,700 servers in state government, the annual estimated energy cost savings will be about $955,000, according to estimates from the Climate Savers Computing Initiative. The annual carbon dioxide saving is estimated at 9,000 tons.

State of Michigan inspector goes over a computer for efficiency. (Photo courtesy Government of Michigan)

“We are committed to making a greener Michigan by doing our part to eliminate the wasted power and electricity that increases the emission of greenhouse gases,” Granholm said. “This partnership means greener computing, and it will help our environment and slow global warming while protecting our pocketbooks.”

The Climate Savers Computing Initiative, started by Google and Intel in 2007, is a nonprofit group of consumers, businesses, and conservation organizations.

Its goal is to promote the development, deployment, and adoption of smart technologies that can improve the efficiency of a computer’s power delivery and reduce the energy consumed when the computer is in an inactive state.

The goal of the program is a 50 percent reduction in power consumption by computers by 2010, netting $5.5 billion in global energy savings and an annual reduction of 54 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. Carbon dioxide, CO2, is the primary greenhouse gas that drives global warming.

By joining the Initiative, the state of Michigan is committing to the purchase of energy efficient computers that will optimize the state’s computing environment and help ease the stress on the natural environment.

Under the terms of the agreement, the state is pledging to purchase high-efficiency computer equipment that meets or exceeds federal Energy Star ratings;

The state will optimize existing computer systems by educating employees about more efficient and effective computer power management strategies, such as better use of hibernation and sleep modes.

Also in subsequent years, the state has pledged to purchase computing equipment with increasing levels of efficiency.

“By participating in the Climate Savers Computing Initiative, the state of Michigan can leverage its purchasing power to achieve improvements in energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Bill Weihl, Google green energy czar and co-chair of the Climate Savers Computing Initiative’s board of directors.

“More importantly,” said Weihl, “the state is helping lead the way to a cleaner and more secure energy future by providing leadership for Michigan residents and businesses looking to reduce their climate impact.”

“The average desktop computer wastes over half of the power delivered to it, while servers spend about one-third of their power,” said Ken Theis, director of the Michigan Department of Information Technology and the state’s chief information officer.

“By moving to energy-efficient desktops and servers, we can reduce the waste to the benefit of the environment as well as our pocketbooks,” said Theis.

Since its launch in June 2007, nearly 200 companies, organizations, and states have joined the initiative, and thousands of individuals have pledged their support. Sponsors include AMD, Delta Electronics, eBay, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Lite-On, Marvell Semiconductor, NEC, Sun and Supermicro.

Earlier this month, the Climate Savers Computing Initiative announced a partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star program to accelerate the adoption of energy-saving technology and practices.

Over the next three years, the two organizations will collaborate on technical specifications and work together to promote the adoption of energy efficient personal computers and servers and the use of power management to enterprises and consumers.

For Earth Day, April 22, the software company 1E is urging desk workers in Michigan and across the United States to shut down their computers before leaving work. 1E’s software, NightWatchman, remotely shuts down computers at night, saving any open documents or email. The 1E WakeUp product can turn the computers back on for security patches or employee use in the morning.

If every U.S. worker remembers to turn off his or her computer on this one day, they would prevent the release of 39,452 tons of CO2 emissions, save $4.7 million in utility costs, and reduce energy consumption by 54.3 million kilowatt hours, according to a Harris study commissioned by 1E, and the Alliance to Save Energy.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

BOSTON, Massachusetts, April 6, 2008 (ENS) – The world’s largest financial services company, Citi Inc., has joined a network of investors, environmental groups and other public interest organizations working with companies to address sustainability challenges.

Companies that join the Ceres company network commit to making continuous strides in improving their sustainability performance and reporting practices by engaging with investors, environmental groups, and other stakeholders.

Citi was approved as a Ceres network company by the Ceres board of directors, who cited the company’s leadership on climate change as a determining factor.

Citi is among more than 70 companies in the Ceres network, including more than 20 Fortune 500 companies. Ceres also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk, comprised of more than 60 institutional investors who collectively manage over $5 trillion in assets.

“We are pleased and excited to join the Ceres network. Ceres is a well-respected NGO known for its expertise on climate change and stakeholder engagement,” said Pamela Flaherty, president and chief executive of the Citi Foundation and director for citizenship at Citi, “We look forward to partnering with them to further develop our initiatives in this space.”

In May 2007, Citi announced its latest expansion of the company’s sustainability program with a $50 billion commitment over the next 10 years to address global climate change.

The company intends to act through investments, financings and related activities to support the commercialization and growth of alternative energy and clean technology among the clients and markets it serves, as well as within its own businesses and operations.

“Citi’s commitment to tackle the challenges posed by climate change is exciting,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres. “Citi is well positioned to reduce both its own operational greenhouse gas footprint and those of its clients. Ceres looks forward to working with Citi to develop solutions to the climate threat and further integrate sustainability into the company’s business strategies, products and services.”

Citi joins financial service companies Bank of America, State Street, and Wachovia, which are already members of the Ceres network.

In January, Ceres released a report, Corporate Governance and Climate Change: the Banking Sector, which analyzes climate change governance practices of the world’s largest banks. Of the 40 banks scored in the report, Citi was ranked highest among U.S. banks.

The report found that a growing number of banks are beginning to factor the risks of climate change into their businesses, but that more aggressive actions are needed from banks, such as explicitly incorporating carbon costs and climate risk into their lending and investment decision-making.

In response to this growing concern around the carbon impact of investments, Citi joined JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley last month in releasing the Carbon Principles, a new set of guidelines for advisors and lenders to U.S. power companies.

The principles were in response to the financial risks power companies face from emerging carbon-reducing regulations.

“The Carbon Principles are a great start and are heading in the right direction by putting carbon intensive industries on notice that they need to factor carbon costs and climate risks into their business development plans,” Lubber said,

“We are looking forward to seeing Citi and the other bank signatories take these principles a step further by disclosing specifics on actual implementation,” said Lubber, “including carbon pricing.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

STANFORD, California, January 3, 2007 (ENS) – For each increase of one degree Celsius in the global temperature caused by carbon dioxide emissions, the resulting air pollution would lead annually to about 1,000 additional deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma across the United States, finds new Stanford University research released today.

Worldwide, upward of 20,000 air pollution related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions, according to the paper by Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

The research is the first to track the health effects of carbon dioxide emissions. It documents the direct links between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increases in human mortality.

For Californians the effect is even greater. Jacobson’s paper offers concrete evidence that California is facing a particularly difficult situation if carbon dioxide emissions increase.

Air pollution in Los Angeles,
California (Photo courtesy U.S. EPA)

The study finds that the effects of carbon dioxide’s warming are greatest where pollution is already severe. Given that California has six of the 10 U.S. cities with the worst air quality, the state is likely to bear an increasingly disproportionate burden of death if no new restrictions are placed on carbon dioxide emissions.

The new findings, to be published in the journal “Geophysical Research Letters,” come to light just after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ruling against states setting their own emission standards for this greenhouse gas based in part on the lack of data showing the link between carbon dioxide emissions and their health effects.

On December 19, 2007, the EPA denied California and 16 other states a waiver that would have allowed the states to set their own emission standards for carbon dioxide, which is not currently regulated. The EPA denied the waiver partly on the grounds that no special circumstances existed to warrant an exception for the states.

Stephen Johnson, the EPA administrator, said California’s petition for a waiver of federal standards was denied because the state had failed to prove the “extraordinary and compelling conditions” required to qualify for a waiver.

“With six of the 10 most polluted cities in the nation being in California, that alone creates a special circumstance for the state,” Jacobson said.

Increased warming due to carbon dioxide will worsen people’s health in those cities at a much faster clip than elsewhere in the nation, he said.

Jacobson said more than 30 percent of the 1,000 excess deaths due to each degree Celsius increase caused by carbon dioxide occurred in California, which has a population of about 12 percent of the United States.

This indicates a much higher effect of carbon dioxide-induced warming on California health than that of the nation as a whole.

“This is a cause and effect relationship, not just a correlation,” said Jacobson. “The study is the first specifically to isolate carbon dioxide’s effect from that of other global-warming agents and to find quantitatively that chemical and meteorological changes due to carbon dioxide itself increase mortality due to increased ozone, particles and carcinogens in the air.”

Jacobson used a computer model to determine the amounts of ozone and airborne particles that result from temperature increases, caused by increases in carbon dioxide emissions.

He observed that higher temperatures due to carbon dioxide increased the chemical rate of ozone production in urban areas. And he noticed that increased water vapor due to carbon dioxide-induced higher temperatures boosted chemical ozone production even more in urban areas.

“Ultimately, you inhale a greater abundance of deleterious chemicals due to carbon dioxide and the climate change associated with it, and the link appears quite solid,” he said. “The logical next step is to reduce carbon dioxide: That would reduce its warming effect and improve the health of people in the U.S. and around the world who are currently suffering from air pollution health problems associated with it.”

Jacobson added that much of the population of the United States already has been directly affected by climate change through the air they have inhaled over the last few decades and that the health effects would grow worse if temperatures continue to rise.

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.

So far this week we’ve been chatting up cork as a great sustainable material, which it is, when used correctly and enjoyed in moderation. Of course, materials use isn’t all there is to sustainable design or engaging in green behavior or buying green stuff; production methods and the way things are built play a big (if not bigger) role in where our stuff comes from. One of our favorite methods (and one we’ve mentioned before [www.sundancechannel.com]) is bent plywood, also known as bent ply. But what makes it so special?

There are two sides to this method that come together to make a really effective, efficient material. Let’s start with the necessary raw material: a tree. While the sustainable use of trees involves geopolitics and considerations galore, at their root (ha-ha), they are a renewable resource; if you cut one down and plant another one in its place, it’ll grow back. Wood is also an excellent way to sequester some carbon dioxide, since trees breathe the stuff in and then don’t release it again until it’s burned or biodegraded; while the wood is in use, it stores the greenhouse gas and keeps it out of the atmosphere. So wood is a good material to start with; next comes the way it’s processed.

Once at the mill, plywood, yet to be bent, can be “shaved” or “sliced” from the round tree, rather than cut into blocks, boards, and other usually square or rectangular timbers. Since trees are round, this process leaves lots of off-cuts, scraps and other bits ‘n pieces that aren’t very usable. When harvesting plywood, the shaving/slicing process mentioned above can use much, much more of the wood, because the plywood comes off the tree much like a paper towel from a roll; this leaves very little waste behind and puts to use almost all of the available wood.

After the sheets are harvested, and the second half of the production starts up, we can really see how the material can boast such efficiency. Instead of being milled, cut and re-cut and then joined, bent ply furniture carefully bends the sheets of plywood so that entire pieces of furniture can be built from a single (or maybe two) sheet. Again, cutting is minimized so as much of the wood as possible is used; Peter Danko’s work, pictured above, is a great example of the modern beauty and clean lines that can be derived from this process. After all is said and done, the bent ply process is somewhere between 8 and 10 times more efficient than other more traditional furniture-making techniques, and if you can get eight bent ply dining chairs, for example, for the amount of material it takes to make one chair otherwise, that’s a good thing, right?

Stay tuned tomorrow for some of the best of the best examples of putting bent ply to work.

After taking in some of the number and pros and cons about ethanol, it’s pretty clear that ethanol born from corn is not a particularly viable solution for an alternative to an oil-based economy; it just takes too many resources and has consequences too far-reaching, in terms of negative environmental and economic impact, to be a more than a stop-gap solution. Yet, perception is in the mind of the beholder; as we mentioned yesterday, it’s all about choosing whom to listen to, and having the right information to make that choice.

Corn-based ethanol boosters are smart. They market the issue from a couple of different standpoints, covering lots of bases. Point your browser here [www.ethanolfacts.com] and you’re treated to the above graphic, along with some other interesting info: “Ethanol offers a number of benefits to our cars, our environment, our economy and our national security. We’ve provided the basics on America’s clean-air, renewable fuel…” We can’t dispute any of this information — it’s true that ethanol burns cleaner, leaving fewer deposits in your engine over time, that, when burned, it doesn’t produce as much greenhouse gas as gasoline, that it boosts the American economy and reduces our dependence on foreign oil — but, as with many too-good-to-be-true schemes, the devil is in the details.

Take a peek at the bottom of the page: © National Corn Growers Association. Ah. Of course they like corn-derived ethanol; they get subsidies for growing the stuff, while reaping the economic rewards as the price of corn continues its meteoric rise. What they aren’t as willing to admit, of course, is that corn is a highly (petroleum-based) fertilized, highly pesticide-sprayed, energy-inefficient crop that, when treated as above, adds to the problems of industrialized agriculture by poisoning soil, water supplies (both freshwater and underground) and the surrounding land, used for other agriculture, including some other things that we like to eat. This list goes on from there, from all the resources required to harvest, transport, brew and transport (again) the fuel to the decreased miles per gallon you’ll get burning the stuff. It’s a quick (and somewhat simplified) example of where following the money (and reading the fine print) can get you.

But that’s just one site, sponsored by one group of ethanol fans. Is this an isolated example? Click on over here [www.ethanol.org], to the American Coalition for Ethanol, “the grassroots voice of the U.S. ethanol industry, the nation’s largest non-profit association dedicated to the use and production of ethanol” whose members include “ethanol producers, industry suppliers, associations, and individuals who care about renewable fuel.” We care about renewable fuel, so we should be interested in what they have to say, right? Hmm. The next paragraph states, “Ethanol drives economic development, adds value to agriculture, and moves our nation toward energy independence. It cleans America’s air and offers consumers a cost-effective choice at the pump. This year the U.S. ethanol industry will grow to provide more than 6 billion gallons of clean burning fuel for our country’s supply. Please use this site to learn more about ethanol and its many benefits.” Digging a bit deeper into the site, we find that many of the same marketing gimmicks are used here, with articles and reports that, “analyze how the establishment of a nationwide RFS (renewable fuel standard) would affect consumers and shows that adding ethanol to our gasoline pool could reduce the cost of gasoline to consumers by 6.6 cents per gallon.” Further appealing to our need to save cash, “This research found that ethanol-blended fuel could save consumers as much as eight cents per gallon at the retail level. Oil companies sometimes pass up ethanol, ignoring its cost-effectiveness and relying on higher priced crude oil and imported gasoline.” Okay, well what about all that mumbo-jumbo about the negative energy balance? “This most recent study by the USDA finds ethanol’s energy balance to be positive – an average 67% more energy in a gallon of ethanol than it takes to produce it.” The USDA, of course, is a government agency, funded and overseen by Congress, a body of government designed to have the best interests of the American people in mind, but who have been known to be involved with special interests (like, perhaps, the American Coalition for Ethanol) from time to time. Not to get too conspiracy theory-ish here, but it’s important to realize that just because it looks like a duck and talks like a duck doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll migrate south for the winter or taste delicious with orange sauce over rice.

So, again, we encourage readers to do some homework and make the decision on their own about things like ethanol, but don’t be afraid to be skeptical and always be aware that following the money trail can lead to a surprise.

It’s easy for people like us TreeHuggers to sit back and say, “Follow our advice; be greener; it’s better.” We have good reasons for saying so — things like using less energy, reducing greenhouse gas output and lowering our individual and collective ecological footprint — but those are sometimes difficult to contextualize and put into practice in a meaningful, everyday sort of way. Let’s take a look, then, at some context for what we’re talking about, as we look at home energy use, by the numbers.

It’s easy to forget that the appliances and systems in our homes have two price tags: one on display at the store, and one in our energy bill every month. It’s also easy to forget that the second one really adds up over time, and that buying the cheaper product (at the point of sale) may end up costing you more over its lifespan in utility bills (not to mention the increase carbon footprint it has from hogging all that extra energy). The US Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star program and accompanying label is an easy, effective way to cut back on this phenomenon; in case you don’t believe us; here are some of the numbers.

$1,900 per year — the amount the average home spends in energy costs.
$110 per year — the amount that using an Energy Star clothes washer can save you.
18-25 gallons — the amount, in water, that most Energy Star clothes washers uses per cycle.
40 gallons — the amount, in water, that an average conventional washer uses per cycle.
$30 per year — the amount you can save by replacing a dishwasher manufactured before 1994 with an Energy Star qualified dishwasher.
$90 — the amount, over its lifetime, that using an Energy Star dishwasher will save you by using less hot water.
Four months — the amount of time you could light an average house with the energy saved by replacing a refrigerator bought in 1990. Check out Energy Star’s Refrigerator Retirement Savings Calculator [www.energystar.gov] to get more numbers.
$25 per year — the amount you can save by replacing a 10 year-old room air conditioner (those that go in the window, usually) with an Energy Star model.
40% — the amount of all electricity used to power home electronics that is consumed while the products are turned off (there’s that pesky phantom power [www.sundancechannel.com] again).
17 power plants[/url] — the equivalent output that this wasted energy equals each year across the US.
[b]Seven — the average number of home electronics — 2 TVs, a VCR, DVD player and 3 telephones — in US homes.
25 billion pounds — the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would be saved if these items were replaced by Energy Star models.
3 million cars — the equivalent, in greenhouse gas emissions, that the above action would take off the road.
1.7 million acres — the equivalent amount of new trees planted that would result from just one in 10 homes using Energy Star-qualified products.

We could go on and on, but we hope you’re starting to get the idea. Look for the yellow guide above to help you when shopping and doing the math for replacement costs (old ones will have much higher numbers than new ones, and remember: little changes really can make a really big difference, when you start adding a few of them up. And you don’t even have to do it because you care about the planet; you can do it because you’re tired of wasting money. Either way, you’ll be more (and have more) green.