Biking to work on the morning of July 5^th I noticed scattered remnants of brightly colored paper. In some places boxes were piled and charred remains of something were close by. Fireworks. There was litter from exploded fireworks everywhere. The night before, in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, it sounded like a warzone…not unfitting for this present moment! And it was not easy to catch some rest through that noise which raged into the night.

In Chinatown in NYC one year I attended a day of the Chinese New Year celebration and it began to rain. The water that snaked along the edges of the streets to the gutters was a kaleidoscope of color from the confetti filled explosive sticks you can buy at any small Chinese store. The confetti, once exploded (really impressive site), littered the street.

So then I thought, things that blow up for our entertainment, are they super damaging one or two or three days in a year? I looked up news reports and found that indeed, fireworks are bad for the environment. But the articles I found suggested rather than the actual visual litter or noise levels being a problem, fireworks caused other concerns for the environment: they increase ambient temperatures (where ignited), deposit perchlorate in water resources (perchlorate, yes the carcinogen, but, not to worry, the amount reduces back to background levels within 3 to 12 weeks), and compound air pollution levels (there were actual warnings for people with allergies and respiratory problems about going outside during the firework display period).

No kidding. Even fireworks, such beautiful and awe-inspiring displays, have a negative environmental impact. Good to keep in mind on our next firework-filled holiday…

Here are some news reports from around the country:

water

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/science/03obse1.html?ref=science

air

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6310145

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/jul/06/guess-what-fireworks-pollute/

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=local&id=5447560

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070704/NEWS01/707040332

heat

http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_6296507

I am sure some of you have heard of kudzu…at least those of you interested in invasive species. This vine is all over the American South and grows at an unbelievably rapid 1 foot/day. That means you could probably sit back, have a cold one, and watch this stuff grow, for real. The problem is that this vine, an invasive from Asia that arrived in Philadelphia in the 1800s and was then used by federal programs to combat erosion or kept and planted as an ornamental plant (it has nice purple flowers), out-competes our local flora and literally takes over the land and anything, including houses, on it. Farmers and government officials and anyone else that cares about plants, have been trying to figure out effective ways to combat this stuff…and of course, all of the familiar old tactics, like chemicals or equipment, have been considered and used.

But one city in Tennessee, Chattanooga (yes, it is the choo-choo), has come up with an innovative method to combat the plant. They are employing goats. Yes goats. According to an article in the NY Times, many people find this amusing. Goats eat everything, as most of us well know, and are pretty awesome at consuming this vine before it has a chance to consume the landscape. They can get onto steep slopes where equipment cannot be used and are relatively low-maintenance. The program has, thus far, been successful, and is environmentally friendly.

I hope we see more stories such as this one in the news! A housing company in California (of course!), Satellite Housing, has just completed a 17 unit development for affordable housing that includes solar panels. The solar installation will offset Carbon emissions the equivalent of planting 20 acres of trees or removing 9 average cars from the road, according to the Borrego Solar Systems, Inc. website. It will also offset the amount of money spent on electricity (4200 kWh/month).

There is economic, social, and environmental incentive to alternative energy sources. In one step this company has made steps toward saving money, saving the planet, and saving the residents’ pocketbooks. The ownership group of the development can also take advantage of tax credits.

The man works for the EPA. He looked to be in his early 30s. He jumped into a conversation I was having with someone else about hybrid vehicles. He said that he owned one and said the name of it, one I had not heard of. He said, “Yeah I traded my Prius in for something bigger because we’re thinking about kids.” Having them, that is. So when I asked, this guy explained that he’d purchased a hybrid SUV.

Hybrid SUV, yeah, I think it was the one that Kermit the Frog was plugging during the SuperBowl in 2006.

Now, maybe I am a bit uptight about gas guzzlers, but his statement that the thing gets about 32 miles to the gallon didn’t wow me. In fact, I was shocked that someone informed, someone that works at the EPA, would buy an SUV, regardless of its hybrid status. He was incensed. “Look, we did a lot of comparison shopping; fuel efficiency, leg room…”, but here my brain just froze. I was incredulous. Are you telling me this guy is arguing that he feels validated buying an SUV because of LEGROOM?

He then started trailing off about how he used to be an environmental activist…he was one of the first hybrid buyers…but so many people at EPA are just bureaucrats and what is the point…and his whole house is outfitted with compact fluorescents…

I kept my cool and stated in the most compassionate way I could muster that I believe it is important that each and everyone of us does our part. I know that we can all justify what we do with the whole balancing out argument: I wear fur, but don’t eat meat, I walk to work so I can fly all over the world 15 times a year…I can have 5 kids because they are all so amazing…it is very difficult to have a net zero impact, but we can make an effort in our consumption rates to act responsibly. It is the easiest step we can make. And the sacrifice? Well, is it really a sacrifice?

At the conclusion of the training class our EPA man went around the room collecting our plastic bottles in a bag, saving them from the trash. When he got to me he looked me in the eye, and, with a bit of cynicism, said, “I am taking my personal initiative here.” I was quite happy. Though he probably thinks I am a jerk, I hope my words helped jerk him back to center (or maybe alittle to the left).

I attended the 8^th Annual Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture at the Smithsonian on March 5^th entitled “What Corals Are Dying To Tell Us About CO₂ and Ocean Acidification.” Ken Caldeira, the presenter, spoke to about 500 people in a packed auditorium about the current trends worldwide in coral reef health. He expressed concern that although popular media talks about the effect CO₂ has on the air, there isn’t much spoken about the effect CO₂ has on the oceans. And the oceans are not an indefinite sink for CO₂.

Carbon Dioxide deposits in the oceans and the molecules bind with the water molecules to create Carbonic Acid. If there is too much Carbonic Acid, it can change the pH of water and is corrosive to the shells and skeletons of marine organisms coated or composed of calcium carbonate, such as corals. The acid literally eats away at the organism.

Why is this important? As pollution increases in our global ecosystems, biodiversity is reduced and food chains can be disrupted. In the case of corals, they are the food source, breeding ground, and home for a whole system of organisms, the diversity of which is sometimes compared with rainforests. If the current deposition trend continues, oceans will loose not only corals, but the ecosystem that corals sustain as well.

Visible loss of coral has been recorded worldwide. Though CO₂ exacerbates the destruction of corals, it is not the only factor. Eutrophication, temperature changes, and human development have also taken their toll. It will take tens of thousands of years for the oceans to recover chemically to normal levels. The current situation of CO₂ deposition in the oceans can be compared with the meteorite theorized to have hit in the Yucatan 65 million years ago that caused a great amount of chemical change in the ocean (along with temperature change) and resulted in a biological impact from which the corals did not recover for 10 million years.

The solution offered by Dr. Caldeira was two-fold. More research must be done on the oceans, we currently know so little about the effects of long lasting events. And we must change our current energy production and consumption. The average American is responsible for producing 120 pounds of CO₂ per day, 40 pounds of which deposit in the oceans. This is five times the global average. Natural release of CO₂ is 50-70 times less than this. This is yet another reason we as a global community need to take energy production alternatives seriously and move away from our dependency on fossil fuels.

For more information on corals:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2006/03/coral_reefs_faq.html

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Duffy.html

http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/

What do DuPont, National Resource Defense Council, and Lehmen Brothers have in common? Normally not too much…but now they make up 3 of the 14 member strong US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), launched in January of this year. The Partnership was formed to address global warming and emissions where the Feds are not.

The US produces an estimated one quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases, but has failed to sign the Kyoto protocol, and has done little in the last 6 years, at the Federal level, to further regulate emissions.

The Partnership has produced a report “A Call for Action” that proposes an economically based plan to address emissions, especially carbon emissions. They have some comprehensive goals for emission reduction that include mandatory caps on emission, an aggressive approach not echoed in the White House.

The launch of this group is another encouraging step in a series of moves Big Business is making nation-wide to take climate change and global warming seriously, and propose to do something about it. Whether moves such as these are stunts to benefit some economic scheme or are legitimately concern for, and action to improve, the environment, is a question, but the results have the potential to benefit the planet.

A few months ago I wrote about the upcoming Supreme Court case concerning Global Warming and on the 28th and 29th of November the Court began their process to determine whether they are going to even hear this case. The plaintiffs are organized from Mass. and are looking to sue the government over its lack of responsibility in regulating emissions that add to, or cause, global warming.

The plaintiffs are questioning the meaning of the Clean Air Act and why carbon dioxide does not fall under emission regulations. They question why the EPA does not regulate more to control the U.S. contribution to global warming.

Judges are divided. One contends that there is no evidence that car emissions contribute to global warming. A few feel that there is enough evidence to give the group standing, including the argument that sea level rise is robbing some states of coastal real estate.

They real issue for me is, if the Court hears this case, are they making a ruling about the science of global warming and climate change? Please check out the article.

If you apply a coating that contains titanium dioxide to a structure or surface, smog in the immediate area will be reduced. Some say as much as 60%. Scientists and engineers in Japan and Italy have been testing out the benefits of titanium dioxide, though the properties of this material have been explored since the 1980s. In Milan, coating containing titanium dioxide was used in order to keep a white church white and has been added to pavement on roads surrounding the city.

Titanium dioxide coating can be used on buildings, asphalt, sidewalks, and many other surfaces. Though the area of smog reduction impact is limited, it is nevertheless a critical area because it falls within the living/breathing spaces for humans in urban centers, and can directly help with car emissions on roads.

You can plug in information on your personal driving, flying, and household habits, numbers are calculated, and equivalent costs and information about how much carbon you have produced is given to you.

Then you have the option to buy a TerraPass that offsets your carbon production by investing in alternative energy facilities. So, you are not actually buying carbon credits and retiring them, like carbon credit trading, but you are investing in alternative energy projects that indirectly help to decrease overall carbon emissions over time.

This idea was developed by a university professor and his class in an effort to help offset our ecological footprint.

This is a cool idea, fun to do, informative, and allows the average kat to participate in the solution by offsetting the problem with economic investment. Even if you don’t have the cash to throw down, it is sobering to calculate your carbon emissions. Check it out!

With all of the air travel I have done, I should invest about $1,500…