D.I.Y Planet Cooling

[Boerseun]

Drink beer while Rome burns!

(Um. . . is that from an ecologically friendly brewery?):hihi:

'Course it is!

 

After enough beer, everyone and everything is amazingly friendly! All it takes is enough beer!

[Michaelangelica]

What about a ban on lawns?

That would save CO2 from people sitting on the sofa watching TV rather than exercising with a push mower.

 

Lawns in the desert?

Arizona State University

Here May 25 show

Science Show

[Michaelangelica]

This was a facinating "Catalyst" programme on ABC TV last week

Some good ideas

Transcript

FROM

Catalyst: Catalyst Extra: “People Power” - ABC TV Science

Wave Power: Alan Burns, Perth, W.A.

Alan Burns, former chairman of one of Australia’s largest oil and gas companies, is the unexpected champion of a new green technology promising to provide freshwater and electricity with zero carbon emissions. Catalyst takes a look at his wave power / desalination invention which is about to be trialled off the coast of Fremantle in Perth.

 

Christie Walk: Paul Downton, Adelaide, SA

Architect Paul Downton believes that since cities are a central cause of the global climate problem, they should also be part of the solution. Involved in climate change action since the Eighties, Paul’s ecologically friendly building designs have culminated in Adelaide’s “Christie Walk” - 20 inner-city dwellings on a half-acre block designed to test his vision of an “Eco-city”.

 

Plastic Bags - Zero Tolerance: Ben Kearney, Coles Bay, TAS

What started with a Schoolie’s-Week clean-up in 2003, turned into an eco-obsession for Ben Kearney, local baker at Coles Bay, Tasmania. Disturbed by the amount of plastic bags he collected close to the marine park, Ben decided to make his home-town the first in the nation to become a plastic bag free-zone. He not only succeeded, but inspired many other Australian towns to do the same.

 

Bike Bus – Convoy of Converts: Fiona Campbell, Sydney NSW

Just by driving 10 kilometres to work each day, you’ll contribute 1.3 tonnes of greenhouse

gases to our atmosphere each year. Now a lot of us would like to help save the planet by leaving the car at home and jumping on the old “pushie” but many find the idea of cycling in the city pretty scary. When Fiona Campbell started cycling into the CBD, so many potential peddlers sought her guidance she felt obliged to set up a "bike bus". With safety in numbers, Fiona’s convoy of carbon converts is swelling in confidence.

 

Rally for Rail: Prof. Peter Newman, Perth W.A.

After witnessing the two oil crises in the 1970’s, Professor Peter Newman has rallied for trains in Perth. By organising community campaigns and putting pressure on successive governments, Newman has seen the re-opening of the Perth-Fremantle train line which was closed in 1979, electrification of the old diesel network and the construction of two new lines for the north and south of Perth. The story of the rail system’s rejuvenation in Perth has become an inspiration for cities around the world, and demonstrates that local heroes can make a global diference.

 

All Fired Up – Working Together: Peter Cooke, Jabiru, NT.

Peter Cooke, together with fire ecologist Jeremy Russell-Smith and senior traditional owner Bardayal (Lofty) Nadjamerrek, was instrumental in the formation of the West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement (WAFMA). This is the first major instance of private funding being linked to greenhouse gas emission abatement through better savanna burning practices.

Years of persistence led to this historic ‘carbon trading’ agreement between government, business, local councils and Indigenous partners.

Aboriginal people say ‘healthy country, healthy people’ but Peter Cooke likes to think you can expand that to ‘healthy planet’.

 

Human Sign: Coni Forcey and Lucy Allinson, Melbourne VIC.

One Sunday in April approximately 5000 people gathered on Sandringham Beach to ‘write’ a human sign saying “HALT CLIMATE CHANGE NOW”. The event was organised by two local mums, Coni Forcey and Lucy Allinson, who are desperately concerned about their children’s future environment. 13 local schools and around 200 members of the Tuvalu pacific island community came together for the event.

The Tuvaluans, whose small island nation made up of nine tiny coral atolls, could be amongst the first to see their homeland submerged by rising sea levels, stood tall to form the letter ‘T’. Lucy and Coni hope their grass-roots campaign will highlight the importance of “people power” in the wider community.

[Qfwfq]

A beer is alway good'n'friendly, but...

Burning leaves shouldn't be a bad thing in the Big Sheme of Things. You're simply sending carbon back into the atmosphere which was taken out a season ago. It does, however, make for a short-term unpleasantness.

You could say the same about fossil fuels, carbon is carbon, regardless of when it was taken out.

 

Now I've heard this reasoning as one point pro biofuels but I don't see the point unless the crops are taking that much more carbon compared with whatever else would be otherwise done on the same land. As for most things in practice, it's not as simple as at first sight.

 

Watering them might be a bit of a problem, seeing as evaporation into the atmosphere during non-rainy periods will increase the moisture content of the atmosphere, water vapour being a greenhouse gas too, of course.

Again it depends on what you otherwise do on the same ground. If the alternative is keeping it parched and bone dry, yeah that's a small difference but a small one. Because, further and mostly, water vapour in the low atmosphere ought to be vaguely in equilibrium with the surface. In the long term and wide scale it certainly is, so the real, global effect depends on how the surface is being kept -overall and long term- so boiling a whole cauldron of water away can't have a lasting and cumulative effect on atmospheric moisture.

 

Burn more hydrogen than carbon.

[Boerseun]

You could say the same about fossil fuels, carbon is carbon, regardless of when it was taken out.

That's just not true. Carbon taken from the atmosphere converted into plant material that eventually gets burned is simply carbon making its rounds actively in the carbon cycle. That's about the same as atmospheric carbon being converted into grass and then eaten by a cow which suffers from flatulence and sends the carbon back into the atmosphere in methane form. Bush fires and bovine flatulence amounts to the same thing.

 

Fossil fuels, however, does not add carbon to the atmosphere that was sequestered a season ago. The carbon injected into the atmosphere via fossil fuels used to be in the active carbon cycle millions of years ago. Burning fossil fuels adds to the total atmospheric carbon load, increasing the carbon currently active in the cycle. Bringing ancient buried and fossilised carbon back into the cycle will bring complications that we just cannot foresee. Burning a field that consist of carbon that's currently actively participating in the cycle, won't add to the total carbon load - the field is part and parcel of the cycle. As long as it does get replanted, however. If the purpose is deforestation, the carbon sent up into the atmosphere isn't replaced by new growth, which means that you're in effect adding to the carbon load. You need new growth to take back from the atmosphere what you've put in when you burnt the field.

 

Of course, carbon is carbon. If I burn a field and new growth happens to take up a carbon atom that was injected into the atmosphere by fossil fuel, you won't notice any difference to the plant. But the fossil-fuel carbon atom that is now in the plant, has taken the place of the carbon atom that was injected via a burning field. That carbon atom will now float around, increasing the carbon load. But fossil fuels adds to the total load, whilst burning fields don't - provided they are replanted.

Again it depends on what you otherwise do on the same ground. If the alternative is keeping it parched and bone dry, yeah that's a small difference but a small one. Because, further and mostly, water vapour in the low atmosphere ought to be vaguely in equilibrium with the surface. In the long term and wide scale it certainly is, so the real, global effect depends on how the surface is being kept -overall and long term- so boiling a whole cauldron of water away can't have a lasting and cumulative effect on atmospheric moisture.

If you wet an area artificially and that causes an increase of plant growth, keep in mind that their stomas inject lots of moisture into the atmosphere. If this continues, the average moisture content downwind will increase, which will increase the chance of rainfall, which will increase plant growth downwind, which will moisten the air, which will cause those plants to inject moisture via their stomas, which will increase the chance of rain downwind, which will...etc., etc. And it all depends on the initial turning of a big dry patch of land into an artificial wet green patch. And the wetting of normally dry ground artificially will increase the moisture content of the atmosphere, even if only locally. This will trap more heat. And so on and so forth.

 

Coming to your boiling a cauldron of water analogy, if the world is the size of your kitchen, and is mostly a closed system save for energy coming in from the sun, and you boil a cauldron of water, you will moisten the air in your kitchen. This will increase the chances of mold and other growth forming on the walls where the water condensated. The actual water content of your kitchen's atmosphere is increased. The plant growth increases, using the moisture to grow and breathe back into the atmosphere. Then the increased plant growth raises the moisture content and keeps it higher than before you boiled the cauldron. Rough analogy, I know - but you get the idea.

And the more moisture in your kitchen, the more heat is trapped. Which, of course, increases the evaporation of other water that didn't initially come from the cauldron, which increases the temperature even more, which makes more water evaporate, etc.

Burn more hydrogen than carbon.

It all depends where the hydrogen comes from. Burning fossil fuels is actually burning Hydrogen. The water coming from your car's tailpipe every now and then is simply condensed water vapour that is a major consitutent in exhaust gasses from normal petrol and diesel fuels. The carbon content in the exhaust is bad and sad, but carbon is necessary to bind the hydrogen into a easily pumpable and storable form. But we've been running hydrogen vehicles since Henry Ford's days.

[Michaelangelica]

A beer is alway good'n'friendly, but...You could say the same about fossil fuels, carbon is carbon, regardless of when it was taken out.

 

Now I've heard this reasoning as one point pro biofuels but I don't see the point unless the crops are taking that much more carbon compared with whatever else would be otherwise done on the same land. As for most things in practice, it's not as simple as at first sight.

.

You are right. (I think)

The only way it can be taken out is if we decide to bury it as in Terra preta.

In 1997 we burned the equivalent of over 400 years of fossil sunlight falling on this planet.

 

The Compost Oven??

Compost Bins, how to compost, composting hints and tips

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1718339.htm

 

The Biolytix Filter ??

New Inventors: Biolytix Filter

 

 

On lawns and mowing

Limber up guys (gals?) this is the future

 

Manual Lawn Mowers Are Making a Comeback

(AP Photo/M. Spencer Green) :: Ben Kogan from Chicago uses a manual lawn mower to cut his lawn on Wednesday, May 9, 2007. Kogan started using the push mower this spring and he is part of the growing trend of people switching over from electric- or gas-powered mowers. Some factors such as the environment and a growing number of women doing the mowing has caused a resurgence of those quaint reminders of yesteryear.

 

By Associated Press

DON BABWIN

Updated: 5/28/2007

 

CHICAGO

 

Powerful, loud mowers have been showing lawns who's boss for decades. But now contraptions that couldn't cut butter without a good shove are quietly — really quietly — making a comeback.

 

Manual lawn mowers, long the 98-pound weaklings of the tool shed, are pushing their way, or, more accurately, being pushed around more yards all over the country.

 

''It's phenomenal,'' said Teri McClain, inside sales administrator at the 112-year-old American Lawn Mower Co. in Shelbyville, Ind., which she said is the only manufacturer of reel mowers in the United States. ''Sales continue to rise every year.''

[Qfwfq]

Awesome rant Boerseun! :lol:

 

Don't think I'm missing too many of the points you make, only the whole thing is far from simple and very iffy, and there are plenty of ifs lurking in your post. Now, I go and tell you it's not simple, when I had put things far more simply, condensing them in a nutshell, in my tiny little post!

 

The obvious difference between fossil and other carbon is that it less easily gets back into atmospheric carbon dioxide without our action... especially the remaining stuff, after massive exploitation by us. It is now less accessible and of course it is always a tad less digestible, however it was still subject to various causes of ignition in past times when more abundant at the surface. Have the processes that formed them completely stopped? I wouldn't be so sure. Whether or not anthracite and petroleum are still forming, peat certainly is and there are many ways in which carbon from plants can end up not getting burnt back into the atmosphere. Perhaps marble and other carbonaceous rocks are still being formed. Even your cow doesn't fart all the carbon from grass into methane, not even all the rest is oxidated and breathed out by the cow and who eats her meat. If you avoid burning leather products for instance, that's one example. Another is what Mike says. In short, you can have carbon on the way out, it's only a matter of how much of it, against how much on the way in.

 

Now notice that I had said "unless the crops are taking that much more carbon compared with whatever else would be otherwise done on the same land" which points to there being many ifs (and I should have written "exactly that much" too). If biofuel crops are grown instead of tobacco, fine, tobacco is worse, but in other cases more carbon could be going out.

 

Now it's obvious that burning coal and petroleum doesn't help, that using vegetable sources can be better, I just don't agree with the arithmetic being so simple. Chop down a forest to grow your biofuel crops and maybe even burn the wood in your fireplace, and perhaps the trees would have been taking more carbon out if they had been left till much older. Perhaps I could have phrased it even better, it depends on what use of the land the biofuel crops are in place of; far too much forest is being destroyed and it takes a while for new trees to be photosynthesizing as much as the old ones.

 

It's also obvious that burning fossil fuels is actually burning hydrogen and btw this goes back to well before Ford, ever heard of coal? It's also obvious that it's burning carbon too, else you would be contradicting yourslef here, and the ratio changes from methane (including your cow's farts) to other hydrocarbons, carbohydrates, alcohols etc. It remains that more hydrogen and less carbon is better, for a simple reason that escapes you. First, in your sealed kitchen example the cauldron would be equivalent to most of Earth's oceans and seas, if not almost all, play it down a smidgen. Then you even mention the mold and other growth forming on the walls where the water condensated. There you are! Condensation!!! Then you say the plants will raise the moisture even further... by breathing it back out. ;) They can't be increasing the balance except for what they produce by burning hydrogen. But is this to mean we should grow less plants instead of more? Oh well, to the point, condensation. The simple thing is that water is one helluvalot less volatile than carbon dioxide, try making dry ice in your fridge. Try melting it into a glass of liquid. Show me the oceans of liquid carbon dioxide and the carbon dioxide precipitation I've been missing.

 

Now I'm not telling you to install a tube in your cow's anus and put the dung in a sealed casing for composting, but if these are in a well-closed building with air being gently pumped out, just enough that elsewhere air comes only in, and taken to wherever a fuel burner is needing oxygen anyway, even if it's just a tiny amount of the other fuel saved it is also far better to burn the methane than to let it out unburnt.

[Boerseun]

Awesome rant Boerseun! :)

Thanks! It's nice to be appreciated every now and then! :)

...however it was still subject to various causes of ignition in past times when more abundant at the surface. Have the processes that formed them completely stopped? I wouldn't be so sure.

Of course the processes haven't stopped. But what might take millions of years of carbon concentration in vast underground oil fields or coal seams is being undone by us injecting it back into the *active* carbon cycle in only a century or two. All the carbon that's currently underground in oil or coal form wasn't all actively part of the cycle at once. It took a bit of time.

Whether or not anthracite and petroleum are still forming, peat certainly is and there are many ways in which carbon from plants can end up not getting burnt back into the atmosphere. Perhaps marble and other carbonaceous rocks are still being formed. Even your cow doesn't fart all the carbon from grass into methane, not even all the rest is oxidated and breathed out by the cow and who eats her meat. If you avoid burning leather products for instance, that's one example. Another is what Mike says. In short, you can have carbon on the way out, it's only a matter of how much of it, against how much on the way in.

That's certainly true. But the burning of fossil fuels goes straight into the atmosphere. Burning a field goes into the atmosphere, too. But the field will regrow in the blink of an eye, compared to the time it'll take for the carbon coming from fossil fuels to end up back in an oilwell again. Just as long as the field is regrown. Deforestation, of course, is another matter completely, because the carbon isn't taken out again by new growth.

It's also obvious that burning fossil fuels is actually burning hydrogen and btw this goes back to well before Ford, ever heard of coal? It's also obvious that it's burning carbon too, else you would be contradicting yourslef here, and the ratio changes from methane (including your cow's farts) to other hydrocarbons, carbohydrates, alcohols etc. It remains that more hydrogen and less carbon is better, for a simple reason that escapes you. First, in your sealed kitchen example the cauldron would be equivalent to most of Earth's oceans and seas, if not almost all, play it down a smidgen. Then you even mention the mold and other growth forming on the walls where the water condensated. There you are! Condensation!!!

Yes. That's what happens when clouds form. It simply returns the water vapour to the surface in liquid form. But the problem arises when we artificially water large tracts of land (where this argument started) in order to grow crops in previously unsuitable land. The water vapour that will inevitably end up in the atmosphere through this will trap more heat, seeing as water vapour is a particularly nasty greenhouse gas, which will raise the atmospheric temperature, which will raise the volume of water vapour that can be suspended in the atmosphere - which will in turn raise the volume of greenhouse gas (water vapour) even further. It's a bit of a *****, really.

Then you say the plants will raise the moisture even further... by breathing it back out. :)

Yes. Plants take up moisture from the ground (as well as the atmosphere), in some cases vast forests with big trees have serious taproots that suck groundwater up straight from the aquifer. Now plants need to breathe. This they do via stomas on their leaves. This breathing injects a heck of a lot of water vapour into the atmosphere. Exceptions to this might be cactii and similar plants which developed a waxy coating to retain as much moisture as possible. Big trees, however, don't. A big fat eucalyptis can suck up to 1,000 liters of water per day. They are commonly used to drain swamps and wetlands, because of this. You won't find a eucalyptis increasing its mass with a 1,000 kilograms per day, however. So where does the water go? You guessed it. Up the root, through the trunk, out the stoma. Close on a ton of water vapour is injected into the atmosphere by a big eucalyptis every single day. Imagine what a forest with a few thousand of them will do. This water vapour will condense out, surely. But at any given time, if there are more forests, there will be more vapour in the air between having been breathed out by the trees, and having been rained out the sky back to the aquifer. And water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

They can't be increasing the balance except for what they produce by burning hydrogen. But is this to mean we should grow less plants instead of more?

Of course not. But we shouldn't be artificially watering deserts to turn them into rainforests. The deserts are just as necessary for the global balance as the rainforests might be. If you plant a tree, make sure the thing can live without it having to be watered and kept alive artificially. If it dies, there might not be enough water at that specific locale. And that's my whole point. Leave it be and find another suitable spot.

Oh well, to the point, condensation. The simple thing is that water is one helluvalot less volatile than carbon dioxide, try making dry ice in your fridge. Try melting it into a glass of liquid. Show me the oceans of liquid carbon dioxide and the carbon dioxide precipitation I've been missing.

I fail to see the relevance of this. I don't remember mentioning any oceans of liquid carbs.

If you're saying that carbon dioxide is worse than water vapour because of its higher volatility, sure, that is so. I never denied that fact. But water vapour is a greenhouse gas which traps heat and the more plants you have, the more water vapour you'll have suspended at any given time - which will raise temperatures, which will make the atmosphere capable of absorbing even more water vapour, which raises temperature, etc.

 

Of course the maths isn't as simple as 1+1. Not from my side, and not from your side, either. It's a very grey area, dodgy at best. I'm not saying we should stop planting trees. All I'm saying is we should reconsider planting trees where there were none to begin with.

 

As a case in point, Johannesburg in South Africa is a city in a forest. It used to be open grass plains about 100 years ago. There wasn't a tree in sight. Just vast rolling fields of grass-covered emptiness. And then the city started growing, and the new suburbanites decided to plant trees. And today, Johannesburg is the biggest artificial forest in the world. Thousands of square kilometers, in an artificial forest that is artificially kept alive with garden hoses and sprinklers. The garden hoses and sprinklers was necessary for the first couple of decades. Today, the city of Johannesburg is probably one of the wettest spots in Southern Africa. The hallmark of Jo'burg is almost daily (and violent) impressive thunderstorms. This simply didn't happen 100 years ago. The forest Jo'burg finds itself in is injecting so much water vapour into the atmosphere that the average rainfall in the city have risen dramatically during the last century.

 

Sounds great, doesn't it? Sure. Until the washed-away topsoil and surface erosion is kept in mind. So, every solution has some penalties, I guess. But simply planting trees as a quick and easy and simple solution might come back and bite you in the *** 50 years from now if all the topsoil is washed away. And the rotting plant material simply doesn't get into the ground fast enough to repair the damage.

 

Quid pro quo, I guess.

[jungjedi]

i wish i had an electric car.but,they stopped makeing them:(

[Qfwfq]

But what might take millions of years of carbon concentration in vast underground oil fields or coal seams is being undone by us injecting it back into the *active* carbon cycle in only a century or two.

That is certainly true, it's one of the things that has been shifting the equilibrium. That, actually, is the whole point: shifting the equilibrium.

 

All the carbon that's currently underground in oil or coal form wasn't all actively part of the cycle at once. It took a bit of time.

 

...........

 

But the field will regrow in the blink of an eye, compared to the time it'll take for the carbon coming from fossil fuels to end up back in an oilwell again. Just as long as the field is regrown. Deforestation, of course, is another matter completely, because the carbon isn't taken out again by new growth.

It's a quantitative difference, enhanced in the case of deforestation, but there's also the difference between whether or not the carbon gets re-oxidated and released. This depends on what is done with the vegetation etc. and of course is no simple matter. Certainly not as simple as the rhetoric I'm criticizing has it.

 

Indeed, I hadn't said the arithmetic "isn't as simple as 1+1" but instead that it isn't as simple as 1-1, a quite different thing. Now that was the only thing I had criticized apart from the water vapour issue. What I don't agree with is the rhetoric being sold. "The carbon burnt was taken from the air anyway, 1 - 1 = 0!!!!! No problem!!!!!" Now if each acre more of biofuel crop were an acre less of paved ground, that would sure be nice wouldn't it?

 

On the pro plate of the biofuel balance, mostly it's renewable. If you're talking ethanol then, further, I believe the H to C ratio is a bit better than most hydrocarbons although not better than with methane (including natural gas). And, of course, it just might have involved more photosynthesis per oxidated than some other uses of the land, but show me a proper statistical analysis before I'll buy the argument. Most uses of land (that aren't unexploited wilderness) are things that folk won't renounce, in trade for the biofuel crop, so in the end the extra acre is traded for something unexploited, and it won't all be acerage that was photosynthesizng less.

 

But the problem arises when we artificially water large tracts of land (where this argument started) in order to grow crops in previously unsuitable land.

Errrr, where did this argument start? I said that water atmospheric vapour has a totally different kind of equilibrium, qualitatively.

 

The water vapour that will inevitably end up in the atmosphere through this will trap more heat, seeing as water vapour is a particularly nasty greenhouse gas, which will raise the atmospheric temperature, which will raise the volume of water vapour that can be suspended in the atmosphere - which will in turn raise the volume of greenhouse gas (water vapour) even further. It's a bit of a *****, really.

Bit of a *****, yeah, if there's a bit of positive reaction, but I don't think it's quite a viscious cycle.

 

Now if a plant is taking water from ground or river, where was that water going to wind up anyway? The vegetation is certainly enhancing vapourization, equivalent to quite a bit more ocean or lake surface, but I don't think it's really the point if you look at the whole thing globally. I don't quite agree about:

But we shouldn't be artificially watering deserts to turn them into rainforests. The deserts are just as necessary for the global balance as the rainforests might be.

but I'll get to that.

 

I fail to see the relevance of this. I don't remember mentioning any oceans of liquid carbs.

You didn't, but I did! :shrug:

 

I was only pointing out that the equilibrium is qualitatively different, for carbon dioxide and for water. Earth's oceans are a humonguous hygrostat for the lower and medium atmosphere. High flying jets are causing as great a problem with water as with carbon dioxide, but despite the much greater separation Fick's law is still valid. Cirrus clouds aren't so precipitative, but even upper atmoshere has always been in equilibrium with the rest, it just takes less tonnage per annum to shift the equilibrium up there. It is, however, an equilibrium whereas a given amount of vegetation and a given insolation won't photosynthesize proportionally to the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide afaik. There's the difference between a stable equilibrium (on the global scale, mind) and a cumulative effect.

 

You're not saying we should stop planting trees. I'm not saying we shouldn't use less fossil and more alternatives. I do say it isn't exactly 1 - 1 = 0 and I also disagree that planting trees where there were none to begin with would be counterproductive.

 

The hallmark of Jo'burg is almost daily (and violent) impressive thunderstorms. This simply didn't happen 100 years ago. The forest Jo'burg finds itself in is injecting so much water vapour into the atmosphere that the average rainfall in the city have risen dramatically during the last century.

First of all, the thunderstorms show that the equilibrium is a lot more stable than it is for carbon dioxide, seems to be more negative reaction than positive. Second, the washed-away topsoil and surface erosion are typically a problem caused by deforestation so I guess there is some kind of a quid pro quo. :D I think the mistake there was that of an high concentration of forest and the erosion is probably in adjoining areas that don't have trees.

 

So, I don't think it would be troublesome to transform the Sahara and other deserts, where it's enough to use available water sources, as long as it's done appropriately. It would be adding to evaporation from other areas, it might even be a globally relevant addition to oceans and other wet areas, it would certainly increase precipitation and especially locally, helping to restore the situation of when the Sahara was a green fertile area. The Sahel has been marching on too, would it be a natural disaster to reverse that? I don't think it would cause as much harm as benefit.

 

Wow this has increased the length of my lunch break! Come for a ?

[Michaelangelica]

So, I don't think it would be troublesome to transform the Sahara and other deserts, where it's enough to use available water sources, as long as it's done appropriately.?

One of the problems we have is considering deserts as "dead" ie not useful to us.

when if fact they have an incredibly diverse ecosystem;

animals, vegetable and minerals we need to understand before we start to "terra form' into farmland

(see recent "Critters post in terra preta forum)

 

ON the DIY topic

will we all need to become vegan

no more burgers"

T bones?

i tried to find the source of this (Akifumi Ogino)article but could not.

I guess he refers to a Japanese road trip and a Japanese house?

 

I wonder what the comparison is with transport, packaging, marketing, processing, and distribution of other foods such as cornflakes.

The major problem seems to be with factory farming. emissions are twice as high as with cows raised on Grass.

No doubt the huge USA subsidies to agri-business/grain growers would be a factor here. Also the price and taxes on gas.

Also the closed, very expensive, bureaucratic, highly protected Japanese meat market.

the permaculture people might have the right model for sustainablity.

 

]Eat a steak, warm the planet

[/b]

From correspondents in Paris | July 19, 2007

 

A KILOGRAM of beef causes more greenhouse-gas and other pollution than driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on back home, according to a Japanese study.

 

A team led by Akifumi Ogino of the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, calculated the environmental cost of raising cattle through conventional farming, slaughtering the animal and distributing the meat, New Scientist reports in next Saturday's issue.

 

Producing a kilo of beef causes the equivalent of 36.4 kilos in carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas, Mr Ogino found.

 

Most of these greenhouse-gas emissions take the form of methane, released from the cow's digestive system.

 

That one kilo of beef also requires energy equivalent to lighting a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days. The energy is needed to produce and transport the animals' feed.

 

A Swedish study in 2003 suggested that organic beef emits 40 per cent less greenhouse gases and consumes 85 per cent less energy because the animal is raised on grass rather than concentrated feed.

 

The study appears in full in a specialist publication, Animal Science Journal.

Eat a steak, warm the planet | The Australian

[Michaelangelica]

There is not a lot of good answers out there is there?

I have yet to see "Buy a bag of charcoal and bury it in your backyard"

This is the latest pathetic suggestions from Yahoo (Abbreviated) (in along line of of dumb articles from various media)

10. Don't use hot water when cold water will do.

 

9. Buy "recycled."

 

8. Turn on the ceiling fan. Circulated air does wonders for cooling a room without having to crank down that thermostat even further. And the whirring sound helps you sleep, right?

 

7. Buy in bulk. Not only will you expend less energy worrying over toilet paper, but you'll also expend less energy getting to the store. Energy savings also come from reduced packaging. Another bonus: presenting feedbag-size packages of Doritos at any gathering relaxes guests who a) want a lot of Doritos or :shrug: privately question if anyone else is coming. (??????)

 

6. Strategic landscaping. Trees are great fuel, but get this: You can cool your home by planting a tree where the sun hits most directly. In addition to simple tasks like drawing the blinds, the shade can dramatically cut air conditioning use. A deciduous tree also loses its leaves in the winter, allowing sunlight to warm your house when you need it most. The tree will do this year after year at no extra cost.

 

5. Discover what "power strip" means to you. Cellphone and iPod chargers suck down electricity just by being plugged into the wall. Rather than dealing with the hassle of inserting and removing your chargers when they're in use, plug them into power strips with an on/off switch. A power strip in the off mode uses zero juice. For fun, free-associate with friends while saying the words power strip.

 

4. A better bulb.

 

3. The Energy Star.

 

2. Get with the program.

 

1. Get active. Getting active has never required less effort.you like most. There. That wasn't so inconvenient, was it?

Top Ways to Fight Global Warming - Yahoo! News

 

Hypography mensas have to be able to do better than this drivel?

[palmtreepathos]

OH, happy day!

Ocean restoration firm Planktos, Inc. announces a truly green and effective answer to global warming and ocean decline. The company will initiate commercial scale pilot projects this summer to demonstrate that marine plankton restoration can significantly lower atmospheric CO2, increase oxygen production, lessen coral-lethal ocean acidity, replenish the marine food chain and generate enough profits in the process to sustain the endeavor until the corner is turned.

On Earth Day 2006 Two Enormous Wrongs Await A Small Green Mr. Right--Plankton Power can Cool our CO2 Fevered Skies and Heal our Poisoned Seas

 

and then a big OOPS!

 

Phytoplankton are responsible for the production of several gases which are important in the atmosphere, including dimethyl sulfide, which

leads to the formation of cloud condensation nuclei, and carbonyl sulfide and volatile organohalogens, which are believed to contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion; all of these gases have been investigated extensively by Max Planck Institute for Chemistry researchers in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Biogeochemistry departments over the past three decades. Accelerated production of these gases resulting from iron fertilization would lead to changes in the atmospheric composition and climate, which could offset the beneficial effects of CO2 removal. The additional photosynthetic activity would also be expected to lead to a significant warming of the ocean’s surface waters, which may have important consequences for oceanic circulation and the climate, especially in regions such as the Southern Oceans, where much of the iron fertilization effort would be focused. It is argued that the known potential for significant side effects is sufficient that iron fertilization should not be made eligible for carbon trading credits. Research on the mechanisms controlling phytoplankton productivity and its link to the climate and atmospheric composition should continue, but this should be driven by basic science, rather than market interests.

 

Max Planck Society - Press Release

 

No wonder the scientific community may look at it this way...

geo-engineering is generally seen as fringe entertainment at best, although some of the new ideas concerning atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestration are being looked into seriously.

 

RealClimate » Geo-engineering in vogue…

 

and then there is something that "tends more to satisfy weak minds " like mine :), that is the Creator of all these awesomely messed up systems is getting pretty ticked off at the bungling of the present tenants and is about to evict the offenders and do a bit of restoration.

 

God will "bring to ruin those ruining the earth" (Rev 11 vs 18)

the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace... And they will reside forever upon it. (Psalm 37:9,10 & 29)

 

In the mean time I make biochar, raise organic food, use way less water, preach and am hunkering down for the ride of our lives...:eek2:

[Turtle]

There is not a lot of good answers out there is there?

Hypography mensas have to be able to do better than this drivel?

 

I propose an international moratorium on all vehicle racing using combustion engines. No planes, boats, cars, motorcycles, quads, or any variations thereon that emit exhaust. The amount worldwide consumed by these vehicles in practice, travel & transport to events and competition is spewing an enormous amount of pollution (pick your poison) into the atmosphere on little or no justification other than entertainment. It pales, however, in comparison to the amount of same pollutants emitted by fans driving to & from events. :hihi:

 

How serious are we? litmus pop-quiz. :zip:

[Buffy]

It pales, however, in comparison to the amount of same pollutants emitted by fans driving to & from events. :eek2:

And therefore since these events have a fraction of the attendance of Football (both kinds), Basketball, Baseball, Golf, etc. etc. etc. I propose that all spectator sports of all kinds be banned forthwith! :evil:

 

Data point:

• NASCAR: 38 events/year with 100,000 attendance; 3 people/car 50 miles@20mpg = 63m person/miles or 3m gallons
  
• US Football: 14 games/week * 19 weeks * 60,000; same car/distance = 266m person-miles or 13m gallons

 

:zip:

How serious are we? litmus pop-quiz. :hihi:

Fortunately, not very...

 

Bread and Circuses, :D

Buffy

[Turtle]

And therefore since these events have a fraction of the attendance of Football (both kinds), Basketball, Baseball, Golf, etc. etc. etc. I propose that all spectator sports of all kinds be banned forthwith! :hihi:

 

Bread and Circuses, :zip:

Buffy

 

I concur, but with the caveat that non-polluting vehicles may race and/or provide the conveyance for attendees to attend spectator events. Electric vehicles charged by wind, solar, hydroelectric, wave, power etcetera.

 

either go green, or don't go,

:D

[InfiniteNow]

I concur, but with the caveat that non-polluting vehicles may race and/or provide the conveyance for attendees to attend spectator events. Electric vehicles charged by wind, solar, hydroelectric, wave, power etcetera.

 

either go green, or don't go,

:hihi: :zip:

 

Formula 1 racing, arguably the "pinnacle" of motorsports is already on board with moving in this direction. I do not believe they are attempting to address directly the spectators travel (although, F1 racing is international and many fans likely arrive by rail or cycle at the European and Asian events), however, the technology they come up in this effort with will definitely filter into the vehicles of regular commuters like you and I. :D

 

 

How green is this? : Nature

On the cover, McLaren's sensational rookie Lewis Hamilton leads Kimi Räikkönen's Ferrari in Montreal, en route to the first of his back-to-back wins in North America. Hamilton's chosen sport is hardly 'green', based as it is on carting machinery and personnel all over the world to drive around in circles. But, in the tradition of 'improving the breed' that brought disc brakes into automotive use, there are ambitious plans to recast the formula as a force for technological good. From 2009, new regulations will reduce the environmental impact of the sport, and introduce kinetic energy recovery systems to use energy otherwise wasted during deceleration. Later changes will involve recovering energy lost as heat. The combination of fierce competition, talented technicians and big research budgets should drive the technology forward in ways that may ultimately benefit road cars. Andreas Trabesinger interviews F1's Max Mosley, the man behind the new formula.

 

 

To Buffy's point, why don't we also all stop going to work? I mean, you do the math, and that's a lot of gas. :eek2:

 

 

Working from home.