Disastrous Versus Merely Inefficient

Henry Ford’s Model T went 25 miles for every gallon of gasoline in its tank. Today, a full century later, the average mass-production automobile performs worse than Mr. Ford’s early benchmark. There are many reasons for this, of course, including such necessities as power steering but the ultimate truth is this: little has changed in the fundamental design of the internal combustion gasoline engine.

Given this neglect of a vital economic and environmental aspect of personal transportation, it is tempting to assume that great gains in fuel efficiency are ripe for the taking. Purchase of a kit for running a car on water is a small mental leap from there. So, what’s the truth? Well, I have a rare treat in store for you, an interview with Adam Nehr of the Kennedy Space Center who knows a great deal about mechanical engineering. Adam will elucidate the inescapable facts about bringing a kit for running a car on water into your garage including the law of physics known as entropy.

Before sharing Adam’s recorded thoughts with you, though, I need to explain the role of water in conventional gasoline engines. After all, as I mentioned last time, automotive tailpipes often drip water.

So, what is gasoline? Also known as benzene and petrol, gasoline is a noxious mixture of 200+ volatile hydrocarbons. In laymen’s terms, it is a string of carbon atoms connected with hydrogen atoms floating in a viscous mixture of other poisons. We use it in our engines because it is relatively resistant to catching fire but also is highly explosive under the right conditions.

When vaporized and then exposed to pressure and a spark inside an engine, the gasoline molecule explodes, resulting in thrust and expelling the constituent elements through the tailpipe. The constituent elements freed by the combustion process include hydrogen. At or near sea level, hydrogen cannot exist by itself. It naturally seeks to join with other elements, including oxygen. Free oxygen molecules, in turn, are only too happy to join with hydrogen to form water.

Boring On Their Own, Intriguing When Taken Together

The water which we see dripping from automobile tailpipes might lead us to believe that gasoline contains water. It’s a liquid, after all. However, the reality is that only the hydrogen is in the fuel and when we burn it, we free some of the hydrogen, which bonds with ambient oxygen to form water. Put another way, water expelled from our cars is much like a serving of rice and beans – very nutritious but if we ate the rice for one meal and the beans later, we wouldn’t derive nearly the benefit of consuming them together.

All kidding aside, we are left with a question, aren’t we? If automobile engines always have run on hydrocarbons such as gasoline and we know that billions of dollars are being spent experimenting with hydrogen in engines, won’t the purchase of a kit for running a car on water be a good idea? In the third and final part of this series, my friend Adam Nehr will explain the ins and outs to you.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

Stepping Lightly

Back in December, I told you about the splendid online video, The Story of Stuff. It explains in brilliant terms the reality of pollution created in order to provide the amenities of modern life, including air pollution and the waste stream (especially landfills and electronic waste (ewaste)).

The main message of The Story of Stuff is to consume less. Naturally, I am in full agreement. It is a lifestyle I have adopted. However, since I wrote about the aforementioned exemplary video, the green revolution has made several key strides in the consumer marketplace. We have Clorox selling a line of green cleaners. We have Delta Air Lines embracing a green operating model in a very public way. So, with all this positivity occurring, how can you hop on the bandwagon and not just consume less but take the next step and become as green as possible?

Knowing, monitoring and reducing your carbon footprint are the key steps. So, how does that differ from consuming less? The two points most definitely are interrelated. However, leveraging the knowledge of your carbon footprint helps you achieve another vital aspect, insulating yourself from green washing.

A quick definition: Green washing is the willful process through marketing and/or propaganda of defining a practice, product or service as being sensitive to the environment or greener than that of a competitor when the opposite is true.

While measuring the carbon footprint of a practice, product or service is not the only way of determining the precise hue of its green credentials, it is the most meaningful and effective way of assessing its role in combating or exacerbating global warming.

The good folks at the Earth Day Network have created a brand new online calculator of everyone’s carbon (or eco) footprint. Arguably the most wonderful aspect of this nifty tool is the fact that it includes nationality in the calculation. I exhort you to surf over to www.earthday.net/ecofootprint today and assess yourself. If everyone did likewise, we’d be a whole lot wiser about where we stand on an individual and collective mark and have a serviceable grasp on the length of the journey which lies before us as we fight global warming and reduce atmospheric carbon footprint by 2% per year.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

Despite what many political candidates and incumbents espouse during election years, there is no such thing as clean coal. That being said, the immense contribution to global warming of the mining and burning of coal has the potential to be offset to a certain extent. To be clear, what I am about to share with you in no way addresses mercury hotspots or other mercury-related issues which arise from our reliance on coal.

Coal mines often contain byproducts which in some cases we capture and in other cases we vent into the atmosphere. Methane gas in a common example and, tragically, its ubiquity in mines is a leading cause of sudden disasters in mining communities. The geological history of our planet is one of the main reasons that the methane is present. The gas was created and compressed over eons of planetary evolution and then trapped beneath the surface. Slicing into the Earth’s crust to extract the coal can allow the methane to escape.

If we think of mines as rudimentary tombs, the potential for repurposing becomes an intriguing concept. After all, if the Earth’s crust was solid enough and strong enough to create and retain billions of BTUs of methane, might it not be possible to use this tomb concept to store other substances? Indeed it can and sequestration is the operative word!

Environmentally speaking, we should desist all coal mining today, right now as you read this. For a variety of reasons, that won’t happen so let’s make the best of a dirty situation. The same politicians who love to blather on about clean coal also are enamored with the concept of carbon sequestration as a means of fighting global warming. The hard science behind such positions indicates that it can help but is very, very far from being a panacea.

Nevertheless, the sequestration of carbon in mines can be an important stop gap measure which I support, mostly for sentimental reasons since it was the bitumen and coke previously located in the mines which brought us the climate crisis of the new millennium. What more logical place to store some of the byproducts is there?

In my next installment, I will share with you an encouraging yet distinct repurposing of abandoned mines. It does not sequester carbon directly but can result in significant decreases in the use of fossil fuels, having a similar net effect.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

Last time, I told you about repurposing abandoned mines for carbon sequestration. While better than leaving them as useless crevasses, this approach has a new rival, aquaculture. You may be wondering how this could work. As it turns out, in some places it is highly effective.

One of the greatest impacts on the planet caused by global warming is shifting weather patterns, especially precipitation. This is the main reasons that Mount Kilimanjaro will be free of its permanent snow pack very soon. Fortunately, some places continue to have adequate rainfall throughout the year. One such location is the mountainous terrain of West Virginia, a spot, not coincidentally, with many abandoned mines.

The rainfall in West Virginia often accumulates in the mines. Luckily, the state of some of the mines is such that the water is suitable for raising fish with the only technical need being of circulating and purifying the water on a regular basis.

HOW ABOUT THAT!

The situation gets better, too. Because the large bodies of water are located deep underground, the temperature is fairly constant throughout the year and there is very little sunlight, which means that they are suitable for raising species of fish which grow naturally in the Arctic Ocean!

This wonderful practice is very real and occurring today. Ponder the possibilities! Appalachian aquaculture allows many of the most popular species of fish to be harvested much closer to most of North America’s urban population centers without endangering scarce natural stocks. What’s more, by growing millions of pounds of fish every year in close proximity to cities, carbon emissions are reduced greatly since much less fuel is consumed in the process.

TALK ABOUT A WIN-WIN!

Needless to say, I am very excited about aquaculture in abandoned mines and can’t think of a better way of repurposing these scars on the face of the Earth. It represents real progress and a delightful departure from the old ways of doing things!

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

A Picture Could Be Worth A Thousand Tons Of Carbon

Here at Keyboard Culture, I utilize repetition sparingly and only for dramatic effect. Indeed, I almost never exceed 3 parts in a series or posts on a particular topic. The greatest exception was my Global Warming Loser series back in May. During the second half of this year, though, I have engaged in an accidental series on environmental contests, as in who can write the most clever poem or story about the environment.

This was never planned but I am deeply gratified to leverage the broad readership of this blog to disseminate vital information. The Environmental Defense Fund already has been featured here for another contest and the deadline for that one has not yet past You can read more here but this latest offering from Environmental Defense has the potential to change another whole demographic group and I just had to share the details with you.

First a quick explanation of the topic...

In previous threads, I have told you about carbon credits. In essence, they allow us to pay money to use clean practices elsewhere as a replacement for the carbon which we produce through daily living. They are not the cure for the disease which is global warming. However, much like fighting malaria, they are an important tool in bringing down the suffering until we don’t need medicine anymore.

Carbon caps are the next logical step. They are a self-imposed limit on carbon emissions which can be utilized by companies, government bodies, entire industries or people. Whereas carbon credits merely place us on the path to recovery, carbon caps are the cure. Both approaches cause us to be aware of our carbon emissions but carbon caps limit our production of carbon, a key difference.

Well, carbon particles in the air are invisible except in the smoggiest cities. They are, to most people, an abstraction. So, how do we communicate such an ethereal concept to people in a persuasive manner which compels them to care about their carbon emissions and take steps to reduce them permanently? That’s where the Environmental Defense Fund enters the picture once again!

A leader among environmental non-profit organizations the world over, the Environmental Defense Fund is running yet another contest, this time for video or graphic submissions which convey a simple point about a solution to the greatest cause of global warming, the use of petroleum products for energy. Way to go, EDF!

The content does not have to be produced in a fancy software environment like Illustrator or shot on a professional soundstage in order to be considered a valid entry. The message is the key so if you have a creative bent, enter today. The URL with all of the details is

http://edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=27811

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

Can You Hear Me Now?

Back in January, I shared with you the importance and convenience of cell phone recycling. Discarded mobile phones are a growing source of land and water pollution and the associated reclamation industry is trying to keep pace. Now, let’s approach the environmental impact of mobile telephones from a different angle.

With each passing day, mobile phones become more popular, not just in the industrialized world but most everywhere because of the relatively low expense of adding cellular infrastructure to population centers. Naturally, charging all of these devices can lead to a great increase in carbon emissions because they consume a great deal of electricity whereas conventional corded telephones use little if any mains current. The problem is compounded by the fact that old-fashioned bridge rectifier (wall wart) power supplies consume mains current even when the phones to be charged are disconnected from them.

In short, while mobile phones have added significantly to quality of life for nearly a billion people around the world, their penetration as a consumer device has caused a marked uptick in carbon emissions. Enter the ingenious software program for calculating carbon emissions from travel!

Except when traveling in outer space, a device which is enabled to access the satellite-based Global Positioning System (GPS) can indicate where its owner is most anywhere on Earth. Since average folks are unaware of how much carbon they emit when they travel, why not offer a program for their mobile phone which crunches the numbers for them? The concept is simple but the folks at Carbon Diem deserve all the credit for their invention.

Already having received numerous awards and entry into the business incubation program of the European Space Agency, Carbon Diem is just the sort of technological solution to global warming which I love to feature here. So, if you have a mobile phone or would like to learn more, just visit

CarbonDiem.com

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

In the industrialized world, transportation accounts for about 40% of air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon. Since automobiles remain a growing trend within the industrialized world, they are a great concern to everyone fighting global warming. Naturally, I am convinced that the Interstate Traveler Hydrogen Superhighway is the best solution because it is clean but does not ask people to sacrifice car ownership.

I am equally convinced, however, that the only viable solution to reversing the global climate crisis is one in which cars are clean to manufacture, maintain and operate. Hyundai Motor Company, in partnership with CarbonFund.org, has vaulted into the pole position among the major automakers with its commitment to the Genesis Forest Project. This insightful initiative is key in Hyundai’s corporate commitment to offset 100% of the carbon emissions caused in 2009 by the manufacture of every car in the Genesis line sold in the United States, estimated at 3,000 vehicles.

Wow!

The good news continues, too. Hyundai will encourage its customers to contribute to the Genesis Forest Project in Brazil thus offsetting the operation of their cars. I congratulate Hyundai Motor Company for its bold step and CarbonFund.org for facilitating the online carbon calculator and other tools which allow Hyundai drivers to be greener.

I am equally pleased to share with you the fact that the Genesis Forest Project is no mere carbon sequestration site. Nay, it is a very progressive wildlife preservation project in the Cerrado region of Brazil, classified as a biodiversity hotspot. What’s more, the project embraces the Social Carbon Methodology.

What is that, you may ask? Here is a quote from SocialCarbon.com...

The Social Carbon Methodology uses a set of analytical tools that assess the social, environmental and economic condition of communities affected by projects, and demonstrate through continuous monitoring the project’s contribution to sustainable development.

In other words, when Hyundai offsets the carbon from its operations, it does not simply preserve habitat or replant trees, which would be good steps on their own. Instead, they engage with the local populations to create green, sustainable jobs, teaching the residents there how to earn a living through protecting their surroundings rather than slashing them. The chart below explains with visual impact just how the social benefits of clean operations intersect and are proportional. It is from the Araguaia Settlement community, one of the projects of the Ecológica Institute, creators of the Social Carbon Methodology.

In my next post, I will share with you the significance of the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards in the Genesis Forest Project.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

Confronting Climate Change. Helping Communities. Conserving Biodiversity.

Last time, I told you about the Genesis Forest Project. I continue grinning from ear to ear whenever I ponder the broad ramifications. Then, I factor in adherence to the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards of ClimateStandards.org and nearly do a cartwheel. After many years of apathy toward global warming by most members of the business community, the climate crisis is gaining significant traction.

ClimateStandards.org is an alliance of key polluters, environmental advocates and researchers including such big names as British Petroleum, the Nature Conservancy and the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Together, this alliance has created the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards. An impressive set of methodologies which evaluate land-based carbon mitigation projects in the early stages of development, the specific requirements call for participants to:

• Identify projects that simultaneously address climate change, support local communities and conserve biodiversity;

• Promote excellence and innovation in project design; and

• Mitigate risk for investors and increase funding opportunities for project developers.

What a powerful combination!

Naturally, I advocate strongly for everyone to embrace energy efficiency as my wife and I have and then purchase carbon credits for the rest. However, as our choices among carbon credit providers grow, we now have a layer of protection against substandard or myopic projects which sequester carbon but do little to assist local communities, create green jobs or foment innovation in the low-carbon economy.

Even if you do not own a Hyundai Genesis, you can offset the carbon emitted by your driving through Hyundai’s partnership with CarbonFund.org in which the Genesis Forest Project is the recipient of the proceeds of offsets purchased. That project adheres to the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards of ClimateStandards.org making the entire project a deep, lovely hue of green.

Keep at it, folks! You’re doing great!

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

Being a vanguard is a melancholy experience from time to time, particularly when political allies of the environmental community campaign on the notion of saving American jobs and fighting the climate crisis simultaneously by embracing clean coal technology. Since I have affirmed very clearly that there is no such thing as clean coal, I went through about 6 months of relying essentially on my own convictions while candidates in the American political system spouted their guff.

Now, the election is a distant memory for most and we are left with reality. Clean coal is a myth. Could it become reality some day? Environmentalists can argue the point. My take on it is simple: in order for coal to be clean, we don’t merely have to scrub our smokestacks. We must mine, process and transport coal with no environmental impact. Can that be done? Yes, I suppose that it can but under those restrictions, coal loses its economic edge over renewable resources.

So, when Al Gore’s fine organization, the Alliance for Climate Protection, unveiled its new initiative last month, ThisIsReality.org, I grinned like the Cheshire Cat. The first commercial on ThisIsReality.org does a very effective job of explaining how clean coal technology looks and I encourage you to visit the website today. After you have watched the commercial, be sure to join the mailing list. ThisIsReality.org is a most welcome ally to my mission to convince the world of the absence of clean coal technology.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

I take great pride in the fact that I have lived carbon-neutral since 2005 and am at the cusp of a carbon-negative lifestyle. However, it was relatively easy for me to make the change from average consumer to become one of the few who live carbon-neutral, certainly much easier than for a large multinational organization such as News Corp.

The harsh realities of the difficulties for News Corp. were exacerbated because the top man, Rupert Murdoch, was a global warming skeptic who made financial contributions to politicians and political organizations which deliberately stoked fears and falsehoods surrounding climate change. Then, at about the same time that I went carbon-neutral, Mr. Murdoch announced his commitment to reducing carbon emissions.

As a captain of the broadcast and news industry, Mr. Murdoch very easily could have surrounded himself with yes men and ignored the climate crisis. Instead, he announced publicly for his employees, shareholders, supporters, friends and the rest of the world that carbon emissions are the enemy of a healthy planet which must be vanquished.

Up until that point, Mr. Murdoch had been so intransigent in ignoring the environmental community that I fretted that his new commitment to reducing carbon emissions was a ploy to keep the environmental community confused. Moreover, since many months passed before News Corp. announced milestones and other achievements, I essentially ignored the organization’s progress.

Then, at the beginning of March of this year, everything changed. [italic]24[/italic], one of my favorite television programs and one of the most successful scripted dramas of the new millennium, became America’s first-ever carbon-neutral television production, a huge accomplishment.

However, as tremendous an achievement as the carbon-neutrality of [italic]24[/italics] is, arguably the most laudable aspect is the decision by Fox network to air public service announcements by two of the show’s stars inviting all viewers to visit the network’s website to learn more about what Fox and its parent, News Corp., are doing to reduce carbon emissions and spread the word.

Since the inception of this blog, I have told my readers that the most important thing we can do to fight global warming, after become carbon-neutral in our lives, is to make the green message cultural. News Corp. is doing precisely that, including with its dedication of valuable air time to run public service announcements which send a very clear message about the urgency of the climate crisis and the commitment of the entire News Corp. organization to do its part to go green.

You’ll find ample details regarding the global energy initiative of News Corp. at

http://gei.newscorp.com

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

With the summer travel season in full effect in the northern hemisphere and gasoline prices on the rise again, the debate between traveling by air and traveling by car is timely.

Which pollutes more, driving or flying?

Generally, if a modern automobile is utilized, driving pollutes less. Of course, when car pooling is involved, the car always is the cleaner choice. However, for summer vacation, two key commodities may be limited, time and money. Depending upon your preferred destination, driving may not be an option. What’s more, because of the struggling global economy, many airlines are offering compelling promotional fares. In some cases, flying could cost LESS than driving.

Hence, if you find that you will travel by air this summer, how can you reduce your carbon footprint? Well, I have posted several threads here on the importance of carbon offsets. My post regarding the inclusion of radiative forcing remains my favorite. However, since it is the airlines who choose the aircraft, is it possible for passengers to impact the fuel efficiency of the flight they choose?

The impressive airline carbon emissions calculator from travel infrastructure provider TRX, Inc. shows us that the answer is yes.

By determining the age and class of aircraft flown on popular routes between competing airlines, this wonderful tool from TRX allows for a convenient assessment in advance of purchasing a ticket. Passengers generally cannot choose their aircraft but most of the time they can choose their airline.

So, if your summer travel plans include air travel, consider determining the cleanest airline and route for your trip. The airline carbon emissions calculator from TRX makes it easy.

You will find the tool online at

carbon.trx.com

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

On behalf of everyone who breathes, I would like to congratulate the United
States House of Representatives for passing the American Clean Energy and
Security Act on June 26, 2009. Likewise, to every member of Congress who voted
against it, I cry Shame! Shame! Shame!

Given the name of this blog and its body of content, my attitude toward those
myopic congressmen who voted against clean air for future generations should
come as no surprise. However, there is a specific element of the argument
against this historic bill which I would like to address. When foes of progress
realized that the bill had a 50/50 chance of passing, they pulled out all the
stops. They organized a telephone campaign which brought the Capitol switchboard
to a halt. To that I have no objection, per se, as democracy is about assuring
that everyone has a voice. However, what bothered me greatly was the type of
misinformation which opponents convinced their mouthpieces on Capitol Hill and
beyond to spew.

Opponents of the American Clean Energy and Security Act had the unmitigated gall
to claim that the technology for widespread carbon sequestration does not exist
yet. Baloney! The opposite is true! In fact, since launching this blog in
2007, I have spent quite a bit of time covering reforestation and the varied and
variegated reforestation projects which span the globe. While planting millions
of acres of trees in order to return the carbon content of the planet’s
atmosphere to levels not seen since the Industrial Revolution may not be as
futuristic as burying tons of carbon in abandoned mines, I can assure you that
it is every bit as valuable to the larger effort of fighting global warming.

Moreover, projects which support the halting of deforestation, which has a
similar effect in terms of carbon sequestration as does reforestation, can have
a more direct benefit to humanity than simply planting trees. To wit,

I encourage you to read my recent thread on the Kyoto Box. You also may find
that you enjoy perusing the

reforestation category for additional inspiration and perspective.

In the coming weeks, as the United States Senate begins its work on the American
Clean Energy and Security Act, let’s all remember that carbon sequestration on a
mass scale can begin immediately. The only element missing from current projects
in order to expand their reach is money, funds which will be generated by the
passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act and enactment by President
Obama.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

Just like with other successful movements of social change over the centuries,
in the battle against global warming solidarity is key. It is for this reason
that I support the fine work of multiple environmental organizations with my
time and money. Specifically on the subject of global warming, cultural change
and the urgent move toward a low-carbon economy, few organizations have a more
targeted message than 350.org

It was the good folks at 350.org who inspired the TckTckTck campaign designed to
encourage politicians and climate negotiators to attend to their duties with the
urgency which global warming deserves. With the capable assistance of Young
Friends of the Earth Europe, the world’s largest human exclamation point was
formed in Bonn, Germany on June 6 to help drive home the point that no global
warming treaty which commits humanity to an atmospheric carbon count of greater
than 350 parts per million is acceptable.

The subtitle of the photograph?

Survival Is Not Negotiable!

Now, 350.org and their allies have embarked on a new mission. You see, the Kyoto
Protocol, to which the government of the United States committed itself but then
never ratified, is up for renegotiation. The earlier version was helpful but the
largest polluters barely have begun to address their pollution levels with any
meaningful effect. So, the job of convincing all of the negotiators that we need
a treaty which brings us to 350 parts per million falls to the people.

Hence, I am pleased to share with you the International Day of Climate Action
from 350.org. Scheduled for October 24, 2009, this watershed moment constitutes
a genuine opportunity for environmentalists and concerned citizens everywhere to
add their voice to the choir of people demanding real reform of greenhouse gas
emissions.

Unlike Earth Day and similar events, which all are important but can lack a call
to action, the International Day of Climate Action has been announced with
significant tools to find action events near where you live or recruit others to
assist you with an action which you yourself have decided to sponsor.

I am very proud to share this information with you and encourage you to watch
the kickoff video from 350.org because it makes the case very well for genuine,
immediate and global action. The URL is

350.org/video

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

jpg source actnow09.eu

On June 18, 2009, Deutsche Bank launched a most laudable addition to the skyline of Manhattan, its giant carbon counter. Located in the heart of New York City at the corner of 33rd Street and 7th Avenue, the giant carbon counter operates 24 hours a day, every day to remind us of just how unspeakably large the quantities of carbon which humanity spews into the atmosphere truly are.

Deutsche Bank’s Climate Change Advisors worked with a team of scientists at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change led by Ronald G. Prinn, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Center for Global Change Science at MIT, to develop the algorithm that drives the carbon counter. What’s more, all major greenhouse gases are counted in the calculation and the algorithm which runs the counter is updated on a monthly basis to assure accuracy.

Two recurring themes which I utilize here on Keyboard Culture are the need to reduce carbon emissions and the urgency of effecting cultural change if we truly hope to combat global warming in time to save millions of lives and countless endangered species from extinction. Deutsche Bank’s fabulous carbon counter achieves both in a single, glorious project.

It is true that energy is spent in order to transmit the vital message of the carbon counter but the news is carbon-neutral through the use of carbon offsets. Moreover, Deutsche Bank as an institution works hard every day to assist its clients in investing billions of dollars of capital in low-carbon alternatives. You can learn much more about the fine work of Deutsche Bank in sharing its urgent message on the project website. There you also can download the desktop widget which allows you to track the huge number displayed on the counter without being present in New York City. The URL is

know-the-number.com

With more projects like the carbon counter from Deutsche Bank, humanity is chipping away at our vast indifference toward pollution and climate change!

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

In mid-November, a business trip took me to New York City, Midtown to be precise. There, as I exited Pennsylvania Station along 7th Avenue, I turned north and spied the Deutsche Bank Carbon Counter, a vista which inspired awe in me. I told you about it in August but no amount of study of the promotional material from the initiative prepared me for seeing the counter in person. Wow!

We are literally cooking ourselves through the abuse of fossil fuels and the fabulous Deutsche Bank Carbon Counter helps remind us of the increasing tonnage of atmospheric carbon which most every one of us contributes. If you have not read my earlier post on the matter, I exhort you to click here immediately in order to learn more.

On the other hand, if the photograph above, which I snapped on my mobile phone, has you convinced that it’s time to take definitive action, surf on over to the official website of the Carbon Counter to become part of the solution. The URL is www.know-the-number.com

When I told you about the Kyoto Box solar cooker, I contextualized its benefits as humanitarian and environmental by explaining the methods utilized by many people in Madagascar to cook food, under conditions which even the indigenous tribes would call primitive. Upon initial consideration, it may be difficult for my readers to grasp how there can be a direct link between such a hand-to-mouth existence and deforestation. Trust me, there is. For the complete explanation, I encourage you to read my original post by clicking here.

Although I am proud of Jon Bøhmer for inventing the Kyoto Box, proud of the Financial Times for seeing fit to recognize the Kyoto Box with a prestigious prize and proud of myself for reporting on all of it, can I truly state that I effected broad change in the battle against global warming with my prose? Perhaps not! So, let’s open a second front in the same battle, deforestation in Madagascar. The good people at Sustainable Travel International can be key allies in that battle.

At this time of year, many people travel. I certainly do. Concurrently, at this time of year, many people purchase, receive, spend or regift the panoply of gift cards which are available from retailers and online vendors most everywhere. Having given and received (but never regifted) these nifty pieces of plastic, I understand their appeal. However, that same appeal begs a question: can they be sustainable?

The commendable Travelers Giving Back™ sustainable gift cards from Sustainable Travel International most definitely are sustainable and help fight deforestation in Madagascar! I’m all for that!

Offering us the option of investing in a broad portfolio of philanthropic and sustainability projects, including the fight against deforestation through guaranteed carbon offsets acquired in Madagascar, one of only 34 globally recognized biodiversity hotspots, these biodegradable gift cards make the perfect present for most any occasion but particularly for people who travel on a regular basis.

I thank the Sustainable Travel International organization for its work in favor of sustainability in general and deforestation in Madagascar in particular and encourage you to consider a sustainable gift card for your special someone.

You’ll find all of the details about sustainable gift cards from Sustainable Travel International at

sustainabletravel.com/giftcard

and the fight against deforestation in Madagascar at

sustainabletravelinternational.org/documents/projects_madagascar.html

Disclosure of consideration: The opinions expressed in this blog post are my own. They were not influenced by any outside party. Moreover, I have no financial interest in Sustainable Travel International, Conservation International or the WCS.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

Disappointed by the tepid results of the Copenhagen Climate Summit? I surely am. Once again, bickering and propaganda were extremely effective in blocking progress on a truly global crisis which already is displacing thousands of people and soon will leave millions more as environmental refugees. Still, the event was not a total loss and the good people at 350.org deserve much of the credit.

For months, I’ve been telling you about the importance of reducing our atmospheric carbon content to 350PPM and holding there. Back in October, the International Day of Climate Action focused the attention of a great many people, including some who were delegates to the Copenhagen Climate Summit, on the all-important statistic of 350PPM.

Moreover, for the first time in a great many years, the sitting President of the United States stated unequivocally that the science of global warming proves unequivocally that humanity is the primary cause of the climate crisis. That’s big news.

So, since so little was achieved beyond strong rhetoric from the leadership of the world’s greatest polluters, what is to be done? Well, we must keep fighting and directing the focus on the fact that it is the most vulnerable among us who will bear the brunt of nature’s revenge for all the damage we’ve inflicted.

That’s why 350.org has posted a series of superb photos of children reminding all of us that we must achieve a hard ceiling of atmospheric carbon content of 350PPM for their sake. I found the images profoundly moving and encourage you to view the entire series at

350.org/cute

If the politicians and bureaucrats can’t find common ground, pun intended, on the urgency to address the destructive power of a weather phenomenon which we have created and which will cost the world economy trillions of dollars of value, then it is up to us, the people who actually care about the fate of this planet, to effect the necessary change. 350.org continues to lead my charge. As a result, they have my respect and support.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

I love to tout the power of carbon offsets. In fact, at this time last year, I asked if you knew what your carbon footprint for 2008 was. Now, I repeat the question but for 2009. Whether you do or don’t know, the simple truth is that you should offset your carbon footprint and CarbonFund.org has many options for doing so.

Now, they’ve partnered with the Responsible Purchasing Network to create the responsible purchasing guide for carbon offsets. Why is this important? Well, the prestigious client list which both CarbonFund.org and the Responsible Purchasing Network boast is a clear indicator that they operate with the highest ethical standards. However, carbon offsets can be something of a black box, accepting money in one end but yielding only intangible results.

The responsible purchasing guide for carbon offsets from the Responsible Purchasing Network solves this dilemma by offering third-party standards, third-party verification, and third-party auditing. In other words, all of the subjectivity on the part of the verification firm is eliminated because the guide provides you with impartial instructions so that you can draw your own conclusions as to which carbon offset products and providers are right for you.

I highly recommend that you visit

responsiblepurchasing.org

today to examine their many informative guides free of charge, especially the responsible purchasing guide for carbon offsets.

Disclosure of consideration: The opinions expressed in this blog post are my own. They were not influenced by any outside party. Moreover, I have no financial interest in CarbonFund.org or ResponsiblePurchasing.org

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

If you’ve read my blog for any amount of time, you know that I advocate low-carbon living as a key solution to the climate crisis. My position is more relevant than it was when I launched my blog in June of 2007. However, even as political leaders on several continents struggle with achieving low-carbon initiatives through legislation and treaty, humanity's abuse of fossil fuels and other environmental tragedies only worsen.

A key component in solving the larger problem, then, of reversing the trend toward lowered generation of carbon emissions to eventual carbon neutrality for everyone, is for businesses large and small to do their part. After all, it is commercial enterprises which drive much of our culture, both in the West and, increasingly, the East. However, it is a common failing among business owners and leaders to resist change if there is the slightest perceived risk of a loss of profit or an increase in expenses.

Until now, it has been difficult to argue with proprietors and boards of directors about the need to lower their carbon footprint because environmental advocates have lacked compelling data with which to make a cogent argument. The innovators at ClimateEarth.com have changed all of that.

Self-proclaimed experts in enterprise and supply chain carbon accounting, the good people at ClimateEarth.com have created tools which have solved a very large problem for the environmental community. Through these tools, we quite literally can account for the role of carbon in every aspect of an enterprise. I was overjoyed when I learned about the impressive accomplishments of ClimateEarth.com thus far and I am confident that they merely have begun.

The early successes of ClimateEarth.com in accounting for carbon in enterprise and supply chain activities have received many well deserved accolades and coverage by business news media. You can review an ample supply of relevant material on the company website. I exhort you to do so immediately.

ClimateEarth.com

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

With Lent in full swing for millions of Christians around the world, the question of fasting is on many tongues. Ironically, many churches waste considerable amounts of energy serving their congregants every day, a regrettable practice which contributes to climate change and, by extension, jeopardizes the livelihood and personal safety of impoverished populations around the world, the same groups which Christians are tasked to help.

Is this hypocritical? Some could make such an argument. As a Christian and an environmentalist, I am sympathetic to both sides of the argument. However, as a blogger, I do not foist my religious dogma on any reader. Of course, as an environmentalist, I am very direct in sharing my convictions with others.

We all must do our best to reduce our individual and collective carbon footprint. There’s no time to waste.

To wit, I was delighted to read the Shrove Tuesday call of Rev. Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, to sacrifice our modern conveniences for Lent, a 6-week process which anyone, believer and nonbeliever alike, can adopt.

Called the Carbon Fast, Bishop Chartres’ words should resonate with everyone concerned about global warming and the fate of the less fortunate in an age of worsening climate change.

If you’d like to learn more and/or receive daily updates from the Carbon Fast initiative, just visit

tearfund.org/carbonfast

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

My heart goes out to the victims and families affected by the rash of recent coal mine disasters around the world. Our top focus must be on the workers who risk life and limb every day, deep beneath the Earth’s surface to bring ancient, fossilized fuel topside. However, even as we grieve, let us remember that coal is an anachronistic source of energy. It belongs in the ground, where the planet placed it millennia ago.

Coal is a known killer. Coal kills many who work to harvest it. Coal kills people who live downwind of the electrical power plants which burn it. Coal kills people and wildlife which drink from streams which mountaintop removal mining has contaminated. How serious is such contamination? Here’s a quote from Dr. Dennis Lemly of the United States Forest Service, speaking with respect to the area which parenthetically has seen some of the most recent coal mining fatalities:

“Before mountaintop removal, cases of severe selenium contamination were mainly limited to coal-fired power plant discharges. Now they’re appearing across Appalachia near mountaintop mines.”

Nothing good but cheap electricity and heat comes from coal. Arguments that coal mining creates economic prosperity are disingenuous at best and perfidious at worst. When the true cost of medical care from people suffering from pulmonary conditions caused or exacerbated by coal dust or smog are included, coal is far costlier than renewable energy. Then, when other side effects of coal are included, such as neurological damage from mercury poisoning, can we truly claim that this black killer has any advantage over renewable energy?

Mountaintop removal mining, mentioned in the quote above from Dr. Lemly, is doubly bad because it inflicts enormous damage aboveground, too.

I could go on and on about how coal kills. However, I trust that I have convinced you. If so, I encourage you to support the work of fine organizations such as Appalachian Voices which strive to raise awareness of the truth about coal, especially mountaintop removal mining. I exhort you to visit their website for additional details:

ILoveMountains.org

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

Air travel is so much faster than surface transportation that it’s easy to embrace it with the thought, “If I arrive in a fraction of the time of driving or riding the train, it can’t be that bad.” Tragically, it is the very nature of air travel which makes it so damaging to the atmosphere, especially the over the Arctic.

The power of jet fuel lies in its ability to provide tremendous thrust at a wide range of altitudes and an even wider range of temperatures. However, conventional jet engines would be compromised by scrubber technology, such as catalytic converters, to nullify some of the harmful effects of their fumes. Hence, they are allowed to burn jet fuel with no emission controls. That’s bad enough. However, of equal concern is the fact that burning jet fuel not only releases tons of carbon right into the planet’s most vulnerable layers but water in the form of contrails.

Why are contrails such a problem? According to an engineering team at Stanford University, led by Mark Jacobson, jet emissions increase the fraction of cirrus clouds where vapor trails are most prevalent but decrease the fraction in some areas by increasing the temperature and consequently decreasing the relative humidity in the lower atmosphere.

The damage doesn’t stop there, though. The manner in which the atmosphere attempts to respond to the damage from these vapor emissions, contrails, is altered by the heavy carbon content of jet fuel. All told, Jacobson estimates that 15% – 20% of the catastrophic warming seen in the Arctic is caused by the effects of air travel.

Do I advocate terminating the use of jets? Certainly not but we can take steps to slow the damage, such as embracing the use of biofuels and hydrogen in aviation. However, what also can help is a sober accounting of the difference between burning fossil fuels at or near sea level and doing so several miles above the face of the Earth. A handy tool for doing so (and for spending a few dollars to offset the damage from flying) is available through the partnership between Carbonfund.org and jetBlue.

Their carbon offset webpage not only makes it very easy to calculate and purchase offsets from airline flights but includes an option for radiative forcing, the physical phenomenon which causes jet emissions at altitude to be more harmful to the Arctic than emissions at or near sea level. In fact, the radiative forcing option is driven by a simple check box.

Even if you are not yet ready to invest a nominal fee to offset your latest flight, or if you would like to know how much damage will be caused by a future flight, surf over to the flight calculator in the jetBlue section of Carbonfund.org and input your travel cities. The whole process will take about 5 minutes. The results may surprise you.

http://carbonfund.org/jetblue

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler