Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: photohome_uk

The choking exhaust you smell when a tour bus is idling is small when compared to the massive toxic emissions that come from idling tankers and container ships at our nation’s ports. So it’s with welcome relief that Newsweek reports that America’s biggest ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach, have kicked off new plans aimed at reducing pollution. About 44 percent of the country’s international cargo–cars, clothes, cosmetics, you name it–comes through these two ports alone, so the effects could be significant.

Newsweek says:

“The constant stream of diesel ships and trucks emits a noxious mix of sulfur and nitrogen oxides and particulate matter that permeate nearby neighborhoods. In the L.A. area, studies attributed 120 premature deaths each year to the docks, mostly from heart and lung ailments; the cancer risk nearest the ports is almost twice the already-elevated risk in the region. Worse, while the chances of contracting cancer are dropping overall in L.A., they grew in port areas by 15 percent between 1998 and 2005. ‘It sticks out like a sore thumb,’ says Barry Wallerstein, executive officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which oversees pollution-control planning in the L.A. area.”

The plans include shifting idling container ships from “bunker fuel” to cleaner burning marine diesel or even electricity while docked. The alternative fuels are more expensive, but plan supporters say lower fuel prices don’t take into account the high health care costs associated with pollution-related illnesses. The Coalition for Clean Air, for example, says that measures that allow shipping growth to continue while capping emissions at 2001 levels can save $1.4 billion in health care costs and productivity over 20 years.

More resources:

For the full Newsweek article, “The Greening of America’s Two Biggest Ports,” September 9, 2008:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158126

The California Progress Report on legislation that would help pay for port pollution reduction:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/08/major_legislati_1.html

Cow manure is the latest, and perhaps most unlikely, weapon in our arsenal to fight global warming.

photo credit: law_keven

Emitting methane (CH₄), a greenhouse gas with 20 times the ability of carbon dioxide (CO₂) to trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere, cow manure can be pretty noxious stuff. However, through a process known as biogas recovery, or anaerobic digestion, the biogas (manure-generated methane) can be “captured” and used to produce heat, hot water, or electricity.

This is hardly a new technology—it has been used on a smaller scale in countries such as India and China for ages—but more recently, it has been used to greater commercial success in European countries such as Germany, Denmark, Italy, Austria, and Sweden. In Sweden, where 7,000 cars and buses run on biogas, the process has even gone so far as one company, Svenska Biogas, boiling cow intestines to extract the maximum amount of biogas.

The United States, too, has jumped on the “cow power” bandwagon or the “manure pit” brigade. Thirty-one states, along with the District of Columbia, have enacted Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) programs mandating that a certain percentage of a public utility’s electricity come from a renewable energy source. Biogas, along with solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and small hydroelectric power, has been identified as an eligible renewable resource.

As a result of these statewide mandates, many U.S. companies are working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an effort to implement this technology and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which rose 14.7% from 1990-2006 according to a recent EPA study.

While the agricultural sector accounts for only 6% of that total, the annual greenhouse gas emissions from a 3,500-cow dairy are equivalent to the yearly emissions of 5,000 cars on the road. Put in other terms, there are about 8.5 millions cows in the United States, and according to the environmental non-profit organization Sustainable Conservation, biogas has the potential to power a million cars.

Not only cars but also homes can be powered by biogas. In California, the largest dairy state with almost two million dairy cows and also one of the world’s leading carbon emitters, the 5,000-cow Vintage Dairy in western Fresno County could power about 50,000 homes in its vicinity. In 2007, Vintage Dairy owner David Albers, who founded the environmental company BioEnergy Solutions, landed a long-term contract with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for a biogas pipeline project which, says Albers, will go a long way to achieving the state’s RPS goal of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010.

In addition to the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing an extra source of revenue for dairy farmers, advocates of “cow power” cite improved water quality and odor control. Biogas recovery helps protect streams and groundwater from untreated sewage runoff and is less odoriferous than traditional manure management systems.

This technology can be expensive though. California cheese company owner John Fiscalini spent $3 million on a biogas recovery, or an anaerobic digester, system for his 3,000-cow business. Many dairy businesses are, however, eligible for grants to help defray the costs. Fiscalini, for example, received a total of $720,000 as part of a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Grant.

And, conversely, the anaerobic digester systems can be polluters themselves. Such has been the cause for concern at Fiscalini’s operation located in California’s Central Valley, a so-called “non-attainment area for ozone.” When methane gas is extracted from manure, it releases nitrogen oxide (NO_x), which contributes to the smog in any given area but particularly in “non-attainment” areas like the Central Valley. Because of this danger, the allowable emissions for anaerobic digester systems have been set to 9 parts per million. Despite Fiscalini’s “advanced emission control engines,” the system could eventually fail the strict standard for air quality control during the 60-day testing period.

Studies are being conducted to determine why even the newer anaerobic digesters often have problems meeting the current air quality control standard. In the meantime, the dairy industry argues that this harsh regulation unnecessarily prevents the widespread implementation of a promising renewable energy source.

Only the future will tell if this technology will be able to move forward and if that sweet smell of cow manure that assails your nostrils as you walk through the countryside will be powering your car or your home.

To find out more about biogas technology, see

The AgSTAR Program

http://www.epa.gov/agstar/

The California Energy Commission

http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/biomass/anaerobic_digestion/

BioEnergy Solutions

http://www.allbioenergy.com/

Sustainable Conservation

http://www.suscon.org/biofuels/biomethane.asp

Other resources:

Holland, John. “Fiscalini plan to turn methane into energy runs into air problems.” The Modesto Bee 12 July 2008 < http://www.modbee.com/ag/v-print/story/357872.html>.

“Cow methane: A trump card in the fight against global warming?” CNN.com. 5 Oct. 2007<http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/05/cow.methane/>.

photo credit: Montrasio International

If provided with another chance, would China have wanted to host the Olympics this summer?  If China knew that hosting the Olympics in 2008 would actually have a detrimental impact on its economy while bringing to the international spotlight the country’s environmental and human rights practices, would we be watching Istanbul 2008?

The International Olympic Committee selected Beijing to host the 2008 Summer Olympics back in 2001.  In generating support for the Olympics in Beijing, China argued, in part, that 2008 would be the creation of the first “green” Olympics.  Cleaning up Beijing for the 2008 games, Chinese officials suggested, would be an inspiration to other Olympic venues.  Seven years later, air quality is still a major concern to the athletes.  And if air quality was not enough to keep China from “breathing easy”, in February the United States Olympic Committee announced it would bring its own food to the Olympics.  Perhaps inspired in part by the worldwide food contamination scare for U.S. domestic pets, the decision disappointed Beijing nonetheless.  Add to that the recent scrutiny of China’s human rights and political practices, is this really what China needs right now? (more…)

photo credit: Mark Sadowski

The flap over Beijing’s air pollution levels during the 2008 Summer Olympics has us wondering: what are the real implications for athletes? And what do air pollution levels mean for the rest of us?

Most people will tell you they can feel the effects of a particularly smoggy day, but air pollution is of particular concern to athletes, especially those who participate in endurance sports like long-distance running and cycling.

Athletes Take in More Air

Athletes breathe in up to 20 times more air than sedentary individuals, which means they breathe in up to 20 times more pollutants. When pollutants make up a higher percentage of air, it also means less oxygen is taken in, which could affect an athlete’s performance.

Once air pollutants (called “particulate matter” or PM for the tiny harmful particles and liquid droplets that make up pollution) are in the lungs, they cause irritation and inflammation and can exacerbate existing heart, pulmonary, or respiratory conditions such as asthma. Common reactions are coughing, breathing difficulties, eye irritation, chest pain, and darkened mucous secretions. More serious reactions include asthma attack, heart attack, even death.

The Worst Pollution Is the Kind You Can’t See

The most harmful particles measure less than 10 micrometers in diameter and are called PM10. (For size reference, a human hair measures about 70 micrometers in diameter.) High PM10 levels are particularly dangerous because the particles are small enough to lodge deep in the lungs and sometimes even enter the bloodstream.

When you hear reporters talk about air pollution levels, they are usually talking about the amount of PM10 in the air. That’s how Chinese officials are measuring their success at reducing air pollution during this week’s Olympic events. Beijing’s goal is to reach 50 micrograms of PM10 per cubic meter. A typical day in Beijing can measure 250 micrograms, so it’s a laudable, if difficult to achieve benchmark. (A typical day in London measures 21 micrograms.)

How to Reduce PM10 Levels

So what can you do to reduce PM10 in the air? Most PM10 comes from cars, power plants, and factories, so you can make the biggest impact by driving less and using less electricity. Perhaps the even bigger lesson in Beijing, however, is that voluntary measures have great limitations. It wasn’t until severe restrictions were placed on drivers, utilities, and manufacturers that air quality improved.

The International Olympic Committee is hoping that many of Beijing’s green measures will improve the environmental quality of life after the games are over. How Beijing fares will serve as a lesson for the rest of world.

Basic Information on PM from the EPA
http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/basic.html

photo credit: naama

Two years ago last month Israel and Hezbollah went to war.  To some in the outside world, and many Israelis, the 33-day battle was seen as an Israeli defeat.  Just last month Israel agreed to exchange Hezbollah and Palestinian prisoners (considered by Israel to be terrorists) for the bodies of the two Israeli soldiers whose capture in 2006 sparked the original crisis.  Immediately following the exchange, Hezbollah celebrated in the streets of Beirut showing off its power.

Seen by some in the outside world as the end of a once-legendary reputation for avenging the deaths of Israelis killed by terrorists, this most recent trade has drawn considerable criticism to the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (six months before the 2006 war, Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke, and his authority was immediately transferred to Olmert, then Israel’s Vice Primier and Sharon’s protégé).  Still, some see Hezbollah victorious on the propaganda front but not the Israel/Lebanon border.

For the past two years the Israeli Knesset has investigated the handling of the war against Hezbollah, including the establishment of a special commission.  Recently announcing his resignation in September, Olmert never really recovered politically from the war with Hezbollah.  And while the future of Israel’s military dominance in the Middle East may face additional challenges from Hezbollah and more recently Iran, the overall political turmoil in the region has eclipsed some very important and seemingly unnoticed significant Israeli advances on a non-military front, namely the environment. (more…)

photo credit: Addictive Picasso

With just days to go, China’s government is working overtime to meet air pollution reduction goals set for the upcoming Olympic games in Beijing.

Named the world’s 13th most polluted city by the World Bank, Beijing has implemented stiff measures to reduce its infamous air pollution, including:

• Tightening emission standards on cars
• Temporarily restricting traffic in Beijing
• Temporarily halting some construction projects
• Ordering some high-polluting factories to temporarily stop work
• Updating coal-burning plants

And while the measures have had some effect—Chinese government officials say Beijing’s air pollution is down 20% from 2007—it may not be enough. Due in part to warm, dry weather and a lack of wind during the past week, Beijing’s air pollution index is twice the maximum recommended by the World Health Organization.

If pollution levels keep up, the government says it is prepared to further restrict driving in Beijing (taking up to 90% of the city’s private cars off the road), halt more construction sites, and order more factories to shutter operations during the games.

More resources:

“Beijing Pollution: Facts and Figures,” BBC News, July 18, 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7498198.stm

“Beijing May Take New Measures on Olympic Pollution,” Bloomberg, July 28, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=agMq3gnpy6V8&refer=home

“Beijing Mulls Emergency Green Plan for Games,” China Daily (a state-run newspaper), July 28, 2008
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-07/28/content_6880332.htm

photo credit: Photocapy

Whether you’re painting or just passing by a recently painted surface, the smell is unforgettable: strong, deep, “chemical-y,” often lasting for days. Paint fumes are caused by something called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a major source of ozone creation and indoor air pollution. It’s also a major reason I’m willing to live with a wall color I hate longer than anyone should have to. Fortunately, consumer demand for no- and low-VOC paint is growing, and so are the choices.

You can buy no- and low-VOC paints online, at green building suppliers, and at most major paint retailers (including The Home Depot, which began offering its Freshaire Choice line this spring).

How “Natural” Differs from No- or Low-VOC

No- and low-VOC paints fall into two basic categories: those made with synthetic ingredients and those made with natural ingredients such as water, clay, bee’s wax, milk protein, plant oils, and mineral oils. (The latter are often referred to as “natural paints.”)

No-VOC (also called zero-VOC) and low-VOC paints made with synthetic ingredients more closely resemble the performance of traditional polluting paints (durability, consistency) and offer a wider variety of finishes (flat, eggshell, satin, semi-gloss) than natural paints. They cost less than natural paints—typically $30-$40 a gallon compared to $40-$60 or more a gallon—but more than standard paint, which can cost as little as $20 a gallon. You’ll also find no- and low-VOC paints at more retailers.

Why Choose No-VOC over Low-VOC?

The difference between no-VOC and low-VOC is not as simple as you’d think. According to EPA rules, a paint may be labeled no-VOC if it contains less than 5 grams of VOCs per liter. That means some no-VOC paints have no VOCs, but some do.

Kelly Moore’s Enviro-Cote, for example, contains 15 grams of VOCs per liter, even though it’s labeled no-VOC. While I myself don’t consider it a true zero-VOC paint, it’s still quite low when compared to traditional paint base, which can contain 100 grams or more per liter.

Low-VOC paints contain a lower amount of VOCs than traditional paints do (less than 200 grams per liter, under EPA rules). If you’re looking to reduce indoor air pollution, it’s best to go with a no-VOC paint.

Beware: Color Tints Can Add VOCs

Color tints, which you’ll most likely be using, can add even more VOCs, so check that your supplier uses no-VOC tints.

Where to find no- or zero-VOC synthetic paints:

American Formulating and Manufacturing (AFM offfers truly zero-VOC paint)
http://www.afmsafecoat.com

Yolo Colorhouse (truly zero-VOC)
http://www.yolocolorhouse.com

Home Depot (Freshaire Choice line only; truly zero-VOC)
http://freshairechoice.com

Kelly-Moore (Enviro-Cote line only; contains small amounts of VOCs)
http://www.kellymoore.com

Sherwin-Williams (Harmony line only; contains small amounts of VOCs)
http://www.sherwin.com

Benjamin Moore (EcoSpec line only; contains small amounts of VOCs)
http://www.bejaminmoore.com

Where to find natural, nontoxic paints (truly zero-VOC):

Bio Shield
http://www.bioshieldpaint.com

Old Fashioned Milk Paint Company
http://www.milkpaint.com

Anna Sova Luxury Organics
http://www.annasova.com