What’s your carbon footprint? This is the latest, hot topic in the environmental arena, and everyone seems to be jumping on the band wagon. There are even calculators out on the web to help you determine you personal footprint, and provide tips for reducing it. Here’s just a couple that I found when I Googled:
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/
And these were just the first three to pop up in a web search!
So, what’s my carbon footprint? One site calculated it at 3.9 tons per year; another estimated it at 12.32 tons per year, but they included ‘secondary’ carbon emissions based on my lifestyle; still another estimated my footprint at 100 tons per year (which is still, according to the calculator, below the US national average).
The disparities in the calculations are a result of differences in what is counted (primary versus secondary carbon emissions) and what assumptions are used in the calculations. Luckily, most do compare your footprint to the US National average (based on their calculations), so you can at least get a relative idea.
So what? In the end, all of these sites were going for the same thing – we all need to ‘reduce our carbon footprint’ – or in common vernacular, we should all try to PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT. What a novel concept!
In my mind, all this talk is less about carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and more about putting a new spin on a continuing struggle to protect this wonderful, amazing, living, breathing planet we live on.
In keeping with the green message – here are some tips on reducing your carbon footprint:
· Buy ENERGYSTAR appliances and products (http://www.energystar.gov/),
· Walk or ride a bike instead of driving (not only is it good for the environment – it’s good for YOU),
· Reduce, reuse, recycle (remember this tag line?)
· Use recycled products,
· Buy food with little/no packaging (this means giving up some of the convenience food, folks!),
· Buy/drive fuel-efficient vehicles (anyone else out there disgusted with the SUV commercials that tout 20 MPG as wonderful?)
· Turn the lights off, turn the heat down, and don’t waste water (OK, perhaps that last one isn’t so much about your carbon footprint;),
· Buy local foods whenever possible – not only is the quality generally better, but the food wasn’t trucked half way around the globe. And beware organic labels – check where they were PRODUCED!
So, what do you do to reduce your carbon footprint? Please share!
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Friday, March 6, 2009
Carbon Dioxide: The New Pollutant?
Saturday, February 7, 2009
A History Lesson & Change
Welcome to the maiden voyage of the Environmental Realist. I’m Kenna Coltman, and aside from being a wife and mother of five (I know, how unsustainable of me), I am an Environmental Management Consultant; have been for fifteen years. My views on the environment reflect my upbringing in the rust belt. I’m a typical midwesterner: practical and just a tad jaded.
First, let’s talk about the history of the environmental movement. I know, many credit Rachel Carson with starting the modern environmental movement, but in my opinion it began over 100 years before she wrote her novel Silent Spring. Henry David Thoreau was a well-known environmentalist, and his Walden was utopia to many. He was also one of the first to speak out for the establishment of national nature preserves, though his entreaty, in The Maine Woods wasn’t published until after his death.
However, pre-dating even Thoreau, George Perkins Marsh was one of the first prominent citizens to recognize and acknowledge the destructive effect that humans have on their environment, in a speech to the Agricultural Society of Rutland County, Virginia. His book, Man and Nature; or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action could be considered the first environmentalist publication, and was reprinted several times. Others followed Thoreau and Marsh: John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, Robert Sterling Yard, Aldo Leopold, Ansel Adams . . . just to name a few. All called for stewardship to halt the decline of our environment (see http://www.ecotopia.org/ehof/timeline.html ).
But it wasn’t until 1948, when an atmospheric inversion occurred in Donora, Pennsylvania, that our legislature finally recognized the debilitating effect we were having on the world we live in. Let’s talk about this event, which is rarely discussed, but was, in my view, the true beginning of the environmental regulatory era in the US.
An inversion is when the usual air temperature gradient from the earth’s surface to the atmosphere, inverts or flips. Normally, air is warm near the earth and cools as you move higher in the atmosphere. In an inversion, a layer of cool air becomes trapped at the earth’s surface (often in a valley, where it is hemmed in from moving sideways) under a layer of warmer air. In Donora, when this happened, pollutants emitted from the local Donora Zinc Works became trapped as well. The inversion lasted 4 days, and the accumulation of pollution from DZW resulted in the death of at least 20 people, and left many others severely ill. This event led to the first actual environmental legislation, the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, a precursor to the ‘modern’ Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970.
So Rachel Carson was really just jumping on a band wagon that started before she was born. I’m not trying to belittle her contribution. Silent Spring, as well as her other books, have provided impetus to the environmental movement – allowing the layperson to understand the problems that our actions, as a species, were having on other species that share this world with us. As a result, our environment, now, is much cleaner than it was 100, or even 50 years ago. We continue to make improvements, and are ever more aware of our impact on the world around us.
In my opinion, our biggest failure in the current environmental debates is an inability to view ourselves as a natural, yes natural, and integral part of the wonderful, living, breathing, and ever-changing world in which we live. As a glaring example, let’s take the hot topic of global warming.
I’m not going to debate whether global warming is occurring – as with all statistical evaluations, that of the earth’s median temperature can be manipulated to support whatever the person doing the manipulation wants to support. I’m a firm believer in the old adage that there are lies, darn lies, and statistics. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the world is warming. The ice caps are melting. The sea levels are rising.
Hmmm, hasn’t this happened before? Perhaps not in the tiny, limited span of our existence on this planet, but it has happened. What did the species alive at the time of this terrible change do?
I'll tell you what they did - they either adapted, or they died, simple as that. I’m a true Darwinist – and please don’t drag me into a religious debate over the theory of Darwin right now (we’ll leave that to another time – as I love to debate organized religion).
My point is this – the earth has changed immensely over the course of its existence, and it will continue to change, regardless of what we puny little humans do or do not do to minimize our impact on it. I’m not saying that it’s a bad idea to curb our fossil fuel appetite, or to reduce the emissions of VOCs (though the whole carbon footprint thing has me a bit flummoxed – another topic for another time), or look for renewable energy sources. All of these are responsible activities; and should continue to be pursued.
But, we need to start thinking about the inevitability of change in our environment, and how we, as a species, are going to adapt to that change. Are we going to continue to rail against nature; rebuild our cities below current sea level; grow lush, green lawns in the middle of the desert; build homes in flood plains . . . Just because we have the brains to allow us to do something, doesn’t mean we should.
In fact, we should use these big, old brains of ours to figure out what the earth is trying to tell us: that she’s a change artist, and we had better prepare ourselves for the inevitability of that change, rather than trying to maintain the status quo.
First, let’s talk about the history of the environmental movement. I know, many credit Rachel Carson with starting the modern environmental movement, but in my opinion it began over 100 years before she wrote her novel Silent Spring. Henry David Thoreau was a well-known environmentalist, and his Walden was utopia to many. He was also one of the first to speak out for the establishment of national nature preserves, though his entreaty, in The Maine Woods wasn’t published until after his death.
However, pre-dating even Thoreau, George Perkins Marsh was one of the first prominent citizens to recognize and acknowledge the destructive effect that humans have on their environment, in a speech to the Agricultural Society of Rutland County, Virginia. His book, Man and Nature; or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action could be considered the first environmentalist publication, and was reprinted several times. Others followed Thoreau and Marsh: John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, Robert Sterling Yard, Aldo Leopold, Ansel Adams . . . just to name a few. All called for stewardship to halt the decline of our environment (see http://www.ecotopia.org/ehof/timeline.html ).
But it wasn’t until 1948, when an atmospheric inversion occurred in Donora, Pennsylvania, that our legislature finally recognized the debilitating effect we were having on the world we live in. Let’s talk about this event, which is rarely discussed, but was, in my view, the true beginning of the environmental regulatory era in the US.
An inversion is when the usual air temperature gradient from the earth’s surface to the atmosphere, inverts or flips. Normally, air is warm near the earth and cools as you move higher in the atmosphere. In an inversion, a layer of cool air becomes trapped at the earth’s surface (often in a valley, where it is hemmed in from moving sideways) under a layer of warmer air. In Donora, when this happened, pollutants emitted from the local Donora Zinc Works became trapped as well. The inversion lasted 4 days, and the accumulation of pollution from DZW resulted in the death of at least 20 people, and left many others severely ill. This event led to the first actual environmental legislation, the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, a precursor to the ‘modern’ Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970.
So Rachel Carson was really just jumping on a band wagon that started before she was born. I’m not trying to belittle her contribution. Silent Spring, as well as her other books, have provided impetus to the environmental movement – allowing the layperson to understand the problems that our actions, as a species, were having on other species that share this world with us. As a result, our environment, now, is much cleaner than it was 100, or even 50 years ago. We continue to make improvements, and are ever more aware of our impact on the world around us.
In my opinion, our biggest failure in the current environmental debates is an inability to view ourselves as a natural, yes natural, and integral part of the wonderful, living, breathing, and ever-changing world in which we live. As a glaring example, let’s take the hot topic of global warming.
I’m not going to debate whether global warming is occurring – as with all statistical evaluations, that of the earth’s median temperature can be manipulated to support whatever the person doing the manipulation wants to support. I’m a firm believer in the old adage that there are lies, darn lies, and statistics. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the world is warming. The ice caps are melting. The sea levels are rising.
Hmmm, hasn’t this happened before? Perhaps not in the tiny, limited span of our existence on this planet, but it has happened. What did the species alive at the time of this terrible change do?
I'll tell you what they did - they either adapted, or they died, simple as that. I’m a true Darwinist – and please don’t drag me into a religious debate over the theory of Darwin right now (we’ll leave that to another time – as I love to debate organized religion).
My point is this – the earth has changed immensely over the course of its existence, and it will continue to change, regardless of what we puny little humans do or do not do to minimize our impact on it. I’m not saying that it’s a bad idea to curb our fossil fuel appetite, or to reduce the emissions of VOCs (though the whole carbon footprint thing has me a bit flummoxed – another topic for another time), or look for renewable energy sources. All of these are responsible activities; and should continue to be pursued.
But, we need to start thinking about the inevitability of change in our environment, and how we, as a species, are going to adapt to that change. Are we going to continue to rail against nature; rebuild our cities below current sea level; grow lush, green lawns in the middle of the desert; build homes in flood plains . . . Just because we have the brains to allow us to do something, doesn’t mean we should.
In fact, we should use these big, old brains of ours to figure out what the earth is trying to tell us: that she’s a change artist, and we had better prepare ourselves for the inevitability of that change, rather than trying to maintain the status quo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
