Does you family recycle aluminum cans? Do they do it to get a little extra cash or because it is the responsible thing to do? How much do they, and you, know about what happens to the can after the soda is gone? Here is a quick true and false quiz on recycling. It will only take 2 or 3 minutes to find out what you know and what you need to know about the importance of families recycling.
Circle the answer for each of the 6 questions. Now test the other members of the family.
1. In the time it takes you to read this question, 50,000 12-ounce aluminum cans are made.
True or False
2. When you recycle one aluminum can you save enough energy to equal a half gallon of gasoline?
True or False
3. There is no limit to the amount of times aluminum can be recycled.
True or False
4. We use over 80,000,000,000 (billion!) cans a year.
True or False
5. At one time, aluminum was more valuable than gold.
True or False
6. More aluminum goes into beverage cans than any other product.
True or False
Surprise! All of the answers are true.
Did you know that for every $10 spent buying things $1 or 10% goes for packaging that is thrown away. Packaging, and that includes aluminum cans, represents 65% of household trash. Wow. What a waste of money and resources. We can do better than that.
Our family is making a special effort to Recycle, Reuse and Reduce. Will you join us in helping to protecting our earth and natural resources? Maybe your family could put up a special box to save aluminum cans for the recycling center.
(c) Judy H. Wright http://www.ArtichokePress.com You have permission to reprint this article in your blog, ezine or offline magazine as long as you keep the content and contact information intact. Thank You.
Artichoke Press is the home site of Judy H. Wright, family relationship coach and author. If your organization would like to schedule Auntie Artichoke, the storytelling trainer, for a workshop please call 406.549.9813.
You are also invited to visit our blog at http://www.AskAuntieArtichoke.com for answers and suggestions which will enhance your relationships. You will also find a full listing of free tele-classes and radio shows held each Thursday just for you.
Thanks for joining our community of caring parents, family members,coaches, teachers and mentors who want to help raise a generation of responsible adults.
A new-age freak grinned at me last Friday and shared her relevation, “Everything’s energy. And everything’s connected. Don’t you get it, man?”
But you know, she’s right.
Otherwise, how would you explain melting polar ice and island nations disappearing under rising ocean levels? Randomness just doesn’t cut it as a solid excuse anymore.
A couple of years ago, some determined energy interests utilized hired hypnotic practitioners (several US senators and climate scientists) to declare to the public that there is no global warming. Early on, they tried introduce confusion into the debate with their term, “climate change,” which suggested that the environment changes randomly and there’s no proof that global warming is a serious trend.
Unfortunately for them, their efforts didn’t work, and ironically “climate change” is another term for “global warming.”
Have broken through that layer of illusion, the Do-Gooders (concerned scientists and environmental groups) and the Hybrids (for-profit companies that actually do some of those same things that someone who cares about you would do, rather than merely say, “We care about you,” which all companies say) have helped us gain greater awareness and provided with the means to change:
“Global warming is real, and here’s a CFL lightbulb and more info.”
“Water shortage is real, and it has nothing to do with long showers.”
Today, in our final article of The Resource Matrix, we peel back layer after layer to get to the core and break the code that sends the whole system crashing down like a ton of bricks. And what you find will surprise — even shock you!
Let’s begin with the first layer:
Layer 1:
the illusion that non-sustainable costs less than sustainable
We began The Resource Matrix by explaining that economics comes out of 18th century political economy, and that political economy itself comes out of moral philosophy, and this moral philosophy apparently had room for colonialism, a fancy term for the answer to the eternal question: “How can I get that for free?”
Within economics and its moral background is the concept of the “free good:” a good that is not scarce. A free good is available in as great a quantity as desired with zero opportunity cost to society. Earlier schools of economic thought proposed that free goods were resources that are so abundant in nature that there is enough for everyone to have as much as they want.
To sustain the illusion that products that pollute the air and water are cheaper than those that don’t create a mess, the scroundels just pay the referees fat sacks of hush money. “What foul? Play ball!”
Layer 2:
the illusion of separation
The next layer we peel away is the seeming “illusion of separation.” The grinning new-age freaky girl has it right again: “Everything’s connected.”
Global warming is not a fossil fuel issue. It’s a consumption issue that involves insane water policies that dictate growing cotton in the Egyptian desert, installing the world’s highest-shooting fountain in the desert city of Phoenix, Arizona to run 12 hours out of every 24, draining rivers to grow rice for exports, polluting the same rivers in India that people drink from with toxic chemicals used for dyeing cotton and wondering why nearly every single person in town died. And on and on ad nauseum.
Layer 3:
it’s up to government and industry to bring change
In the commercial marketplace, you vote with your feet. If you’re sitting in a movie theater and the film sucks, you stand up because you can’t take it any longer. And walk out. Just remember who the lousy director or actor was so you’re not doomed to repeat your history of lousy film choices.
If we leave it to government and industry to form a partnership to solve water usage issues, it will be virtual warfare, as we described in our last article (The Resource Matrix part 3 of 4: the coming cold water waters):
In this game, you start as leader of a country which has certain industries, a growing population, and dwindling water resources. Your objective is to maintain or enhance the lifestyle of your people by shifting water use to other countries in order to prevent internal strife and your eventual overthrow and death by coup d’etat.
And as you read, this game has no winners. It’s not sustainable.
Rather than blindly obeying the on-screen instructions (”Please pick a COUNTRY, PLAYER NAME, and Press the START button to begin now.”), it’s best never to press the START button at all.
Instead of giving your power over to the Government/Industry Gamers, vote with your feet.
Like doing business with those who conduct themselves in line with your own beliefs (cruelty-free products manufacturer, member of your own religious faith), you can make certain individual decisions consciously.
In certain cases, you make conscious decisions that consciously support certain businesses:
retailers (and the manufacturers) of compact fluorescent bulbs
shade-grown coffee
cruelty-free health and beauty products
In certain cases, you make conscious decisions that unconsciously reduce support for certain businesses:
using daylight instead of manufactured light sources reduces coal production and its polluting effects, in addition to saving energy
How about water? What choices do you have? Here’s possible near-future scenes:
Online resumes now include diet preferences as an indicator of personal water footprint and employment site search tools include diet as a filter.
Business headlines: “Demand for beef-free Hindu programmers causes short squeeze in software development market - low-waterfoot print computer geeks ask for, get 25% more than meat-eating peers” and “All-vegan employee company Sustainatrix International goes public in huge stock offering - market value of $150 billion confirms validity of sustainability in capital and financial modeling”
The Matrix and Vanilla Sky:
Not what it seems
In The Matrix, Morpheus explains that “the Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.”
In the 2001 Tom Cruise psychological thriller Vanilla Sky, built layer upon layer of seeming reality, Cruise’s handsome character enjoys the charmed rich life, then gets into an accident that mars his face, over which he needs to wear a mask. Eventually distraught, he goes out drinking, and ends up literally in the gutter to sleep it off.
He wakes to continue his life in an sequence of odd experiences. Finally remembering some repressed memories, he gets help and peels back one layer of the illusion: all his “experiences” since landing in the gutter have been a dream.
Trying to cope with his shattered worldview, he peels back another layer: worse, he’s been “dead” for 150 years and in a state of suspended animation.
And yet, the movie itself is not what it seems. Vanilla Sky was a Hollywood idle rich American kid adaptation of the 1997 Spanish original entitled Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes) and also co-starred Penelope Cruz in her same role.
I introduced this four-part series by explaining that:
the Resource Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
You take the blue pill and the story ends.
You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
I’ve shown you how deep the rabbit hole goes, and now you can wake in your bed and choose to continue to live like Tom Cruise, or you can break the code.
To break the code that creates the graphical user interface and see the illusion for what it really is, you need only do one thing, as repeated by Tom Cruise’s alarm clock each morning in Vanilla Sky:
Open your eyes.
And see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you.
Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .
To your green, brighter future,
Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19
And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.
It aims to harvest the sun’s energy â?? using a method known as concentrating solar power, or C.S.P. â?? from the vast North African desert and deliver it as electricity, via high-voltage transmission lines, to markets in Europe. …
The Pacific Gas And Electricity Company, per this â??interviewâ? with the CEO of Solaren on their affiliated site announced PG&E’s plans to buy 200MW of base-load power from a Solaren beamed space solar power plant by 2016. …
The major Indian newspaper, The Hindu, has been leaked a finalized draft of a national solar power plan that aims to have 200 GW in place by 2050. The plan.
At first you might have to invest a little on the solar energy panels or cells for the solar power house. The upkeep of solar cells or panels is nil. Apart from this, the life of the solar cells is much longer and includes a whole life …
Last week, we introduced you to the Resource Matrix, which is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
We showed you how economics leads to people maximizing their benefits in “win-lose” propositions: you want diamonds and gold for nothing and they want to give you useless junk for a king’s ransom. And how we’ve been hypnotized in believing what they want is also what we want.
But the scales have been falling from our eyes, we’re beginning to see the truth, and the power has been shifting away from the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd:
Do-gooders have increased our awareness and worked to change deals from “win-lose” to “win-win”
There is no “free lunch:” finite energy resources will run out; actions have consequences, and the consequences of our actions are already visible, rather scary, and quite irreversible; and that the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd hasn’t been telling the truth
We now realize we’re all in this together: we have greater awareness of our actions and the desire to change, and have ways to change.
Hallelujah and Praise the Collective!
Today, we introduce the resource called water, its parallels with fossil fuels, and its role in global warming.
None of this is to dismiss or diminish the contribution of fossil fuels in global warming. Hey, just like the Special Olympics, if you participate, you get a medal. We just think that gold-medal winner Fossil Fuels has stolen the spotlight, letting silver-medalist Water Use keep us hypnotized in believing that water is a free lunch, and that nature will clear up polluted waters while getting away with breaking the rules.
Water, water, everywhere,
not a drop to drink.
According to our friends at How Stuff Works, who I wrote about sarcastically for their oxymoronic clean coal article in discussing how true public relations stuff really works, gives us this data:
98% of the planet’s water is in the oceans. It’s salt water - we can’t drink it or irrigate our crops with it.
2% is usable. Of that 2%:
80% is locked up in polar ice caps and glaciers
18% is underground in aquifers and wells
1.8% is in lakes and rivers
0.2% is elsewhere: either floating in the air as clouds and water vapor, locked up in plants and animals (and your body), and in foods and beverages.
Okay, so 20% of the usable water (only 0.4% of all water on Earth) is accessible, right?
Well . . . no. Many of the aquifers, wells, lakes, and rivers have been sucked dry like a once-juicy fly carcass in a spider’s web. (The 18% and 1.8% you see above is like the money in the Social Security Fund: there actually is nothing there.)
And many of those water sources that do still have a drop to drink are worse than the ocean’s salt water. Drink salt water and you’ll need to yawn into a bucket. Drink this water and you’ll kick the bucket.
And I know you aren’t asking this burning question:
“So . . . global warming to release fresh water from ice caps and glaciers is a good thing, no?”
Percentage this, percentage that.
Talk my language, will you?
I know I’m pulling the disgusting old government trick: drowning you in an ocean of water statistics.
So let’s make it plain and simple:
You bring in $10,000 a month. You’re also living high on the hog and doing your personal best to outshine every bling-bling Hip Hopster Musical Artist in materially conspicuous consumption:
$9800 goes to the McMansion mortgage and gold-plated Rolls Royce lease
$160.00 goes to investments in clothing and accessories
$0.40 has been lost in the sofa cushions
$39.60 a month is for everything else: food, phone and electric bills, income taxes, and all the other non-essentials: Don’t spend it all in one place!
Aquifers and wells and lakes and rivers:
Dry or polluted, oh my!
Fred Pearce, author of When the Rivers Run Dry, helps us quickly understand it:
We can all save water in the home. But as laudable as it is to take a shower rather than a bath and turn off the faucet while brushing our teeth, we shouldn’t get hold of the idea that regular domestic water use is what is really emptying the world’s rivers. Manufacturing goods … consumes a certain amount, but that’s not the real story either. It is only when we add in the water needed to grow what we eat and drink that the numbers really begin to soar. (emphasis mine.) (Fred Pearce, When the Rivers Run Dry, Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. p 3)
Here are a few numbers he gives:
to grow a pound of rice: 250 to 650 gallons of water
to grow a pound of wheat: 130 gallons
to produce a quart of milk: 500 to 1000 gallons
to produce a pound of cheese: 650 gallons
to produce a 1/4 pound of burger: 3000 gallons
He kindly puts water use into perspective in annual terms:
1 ton (265 gallons) for drinking
50 to 100 tons (13,250 to 26,500 gallons) around the house
1500 to 2000 tons (397,500 to 530,000 gallons) for food and clothing
—————————————–
sidebar: How Many Gallons to Produce One Pound of Beef?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
US Beef industry’s Cattlemen’s Association: 441 gallons
Fred Pearce: 12,000 gallons
Water Footprint Network: 1854 gallons (calculations: 15500 litres of water per kg; 4079 gallons per kg; 1854 gallons per pound)
In an industrial beef production system, it takes an average three years before the animal is slaughtered to produce about 200 kg of boneless beef.
The animal consumes nearly 1300 kg of grains (wheat, oats, barley, corn, dry peas, soybean meal and other small grains), 7200 kg of roughages (pasture, dry hay, silage and other roughages), 24 cubic meter of water for drinking and 7 cubic meter of water for servicing.
This means that to produce one kilogram of boneless beef, we use about 6.5 kg of grain, 36 kg of roughages, and 155 litres of water (only for drinking and servicing).
Producing the volume of feed requires about 15300 litres of water on average.
—————————————–
Where does all that water come from?
From virtually everywhere
If it comes from imported goods (Thai rice or Egyptian cotton), the water comes from those countries.
When the water is collected from rivers or pumped from underground, as it is in much of the world, it’s:
increasingly expensive
increasingly likely to deprive someone of water (nothing to drink)
increasingly likely to empty rivers and underground water reserves
And when the rivers are running low, as they are more frequently, there is less water to grow anything at all.
The water used in growing and producing goods around the world is known as “virtual water” and the trade of these goods is known as “virtual water transfers.”
And who’s the biggest water exporting Mouseketeer of them all? The United States.
When you drink coffee from Central America, you are influencing the hydrology of the region, virtually taking a share of the Costa Rican rains. The same is true within a national and regional boundaries. The Colorado River is drained so Californians can eat their Big Macs and have friends over for a Sunday afternoon barbecue.
In the same way that your use of fossil fuel is measured as a “carbon footprint,” your water use, actual and through virtual water transfer, is measured as a “water footprint.”
How big is my water footprint?
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours
Arjen Y. Hoekstra, professor at the University of Twente, the Netherlands, introduced the water-footprint concept in 2002. It “shows water use related to consumption within a nation, while the traditional indicator shows water use in relation to production within a nation.” (Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008, p. 3)
With Hoekstra and Chapagain’s water footprint calculator (waterfootprint.org), you select your country, input food, domestic water use, and industrial goods consumption, press a button, and you get your:
total water footprint for the year
bar charts for the three components
bar charts for individual food categories
For example, you’re in the US, eat only 1 pound of cereal a week (.4545 kg) and have a low-fat, low-sugar diet, use a low-flow showerhead, use a no-flush eco-toilet, and never run the tap while brushing your teeth. Two extremes:
You’re the hippiest of the hip: making $10,000 a year: Your water footprint: 245 cubic meters (65,170 gallons)
You’re the hippiest of the Yuppies: making $120,000: Your water footprint: 2979 cubic meters (792,414 gallons). Difference due to your income’s effect on industrial production.
Three notes on the calculations, because Professor Hoekstra is European and lives in the social welfare country that started birthing hippies in Amsterdam decades before they showed up in the US at Woodstock:
The higher your income, the greater your water footprint, even if you don’t personally consume anything: you’re a capitalist pig supporting the Establishment Regime, I guess
So how is Cinnamon’s capitalist water footprint? Answer: 650 cubic meters (172,900 gallons)
Water’s running out:
I get the fossil fuel analogy so far.
And what about climate change?
We return to Fred Pearce’s book to find an example, of which he has oceans:
China’s Yellow River: The fifth longest in the world, it begins high in the mountains of eastern Tibet and journeys more than 3000 miles. Almost half a billion people depend on it for drinking and crop irrigation, and it’s made China the world’s largest wheat producer and second largest corn producer. Yet more than half of the lakes it feeds have disappeared over the last 20 years, and a third of pastures have turned to desert. This desertification generates huge dust storms that choke lungs in Beijing, close schools in Koreas, dust cars in Japan, and rain dust on mountains across the Pacific and Western Canada.
State irrigation projects along the Yellow River soak up the majority of its water - the total official allocations are greater than the actual flow.
The resulting drought could be an early warning sign of global warming.
Much of the declines in moisture reaching rivers is in line with prediction of climate researchers. So how does this global warming happen?
Higher air temperatures from desertification increase evaporation from oceans and intensify the water cycle. This increases atmospheric water vapor - 8 to 10% more than today. This increases global rainfall, but the rain is being redistributed: middle latitudes (read: the US) are becoming drier. Higher temperatures increase evaporation on land, meaning soil dries out faster, meaning less rainfall is reaching rivers.
The higher temperatures melt glaciers and snowpacks. At first, this leads to unpredecented floods. After the glaciers disappear, meltwaters that feed rivers disappear. The combined decreasing rainfall and increasing evaporation will lower moisture by 40% in the southern and western states.
The Sierra Nevada snowpack could diminish by 70 to 80 percent over the next 50 years. And some of the world’s most productive agricultural regions could dry up.
Global climate is becoming more extreme: the dry areas become drier, and the wet areas become wetter. And more areas are becoming dry deserts. Loss of habitat and agricultural lands. It’s a vicious cycle.
So what can you do?
Navigating through the Resource Matrix
As Fred Pearce points out, your drinking and bathing account for 0.05% of your total water consumption. Your food and clothing weigh in at 95.00%, although I find his 12,000 gallons needed to produce a pound of burger rather wild.
As Professor Arjen Y. Joekstra shows with his Water Footprint Calculator, your consumption of meats accounts for a lot, as does your guilt by association of being in an industrialized country.
The obvious solution: eat fewer e-coli burgers from your neighborhood Salt and Fat Slop Bucket restaurant.
The wiser solution: like your choices in energy use, become more aware of the resources needed to produce anything and the consequences. Such as luxurious cotton grown in the Egyptian desert.
Next article in the water efficiency series:
How an illiterate, lice-infested, foul-mouthed
peasant on some other side of the globe affects you
We continue going with the flow of water, when we show the parallel between the current hot Oil Wars and in the future cold Water Wars.
And all of this is for one purpose:
To help you see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you.
Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .
To your green, brighter future,
Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19
And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.
There are many stinky things in the world today. From the bathroom to the kitchen there are things in everyday life that can cause a nose to curl. However, activated carbon can quickly eliminate odors in the home, office, or commercial building. While many products simply mask odors or cover them up, activated carbon can absorb the odor and eliminate it once and for all. There are many ways that activated carbon can be used within a building to remove odor. Whether the smell is a permanent or occasional odor, activated carbon can be used to eliminate it.
Air Filtration Systems
An air filtration system can be placed on the air supply to any building to help eliminate the odors in the building. If there is a central heat and air system in the building the air filtration system can be used in the circulation process. A free standing air purification system can also be used in bathrooms that are used by numerous employees. These systems are much more effective than other means of removing odors.
Odor Blocking Masks
For those who work or play in environments that are not appealing to their noses there are activated charcoal masks that can be worn. These masks work to block the smells from reaching the nose. As the smell passes through the mask it is sucked up against the carbon and held there, eliminating the smell. These masks are perfect for those who work with garbage, waste, or cleaning products.
Flatulence Elimination pads and Inserts
Flatulence is a problem for many people today. Because of a fast paced environment and fast food restraints many people experience this condition. Luckily, there are now flatulence pads that can be used to eliminate the odor that accompanies flatulence. These pads can be placed in a chair for those in an office. However, there are also flatulence pads that can be placed inside the undergarment to eliminate odors.
Odor Eliminators for Pets
Activated charcoal can also be used to eliminate the odor that accompanies pet ownership. There are many smells that can come from litter boxes, accidents on the floor, and messes made in the yard. However, activated carbon can be made in the form of a powder. This powder can be sprinkled into the litter box, on the carpet, or in the yard outside. For use on the carpet in can be sprinkled on and then vacuumed up However, in other places it can be left to continue working. It is perfectly safe to use around pets and will not cause any harm if they ingest it.
There are many uses fro activated carbon today. It is an excellent odor eliminator. While these are many of the uses for eliminating odors there are many more. Anywhere there is a smell or odor; activated carbon can be used to eliminate it. This product is a green option for cleaning, absorbing, and eliminating odor. Activated carbon also has many other uses including purification, detoxification and moisture absorption.
Carbon Resources Management Team has over 70 years of experience in the Activated Carbon and Activated Charcoal carbons industry. Our Sabre series® activated carbon products are the most diverse line of activated carbon products on the market.
Germ of an Idea - A Modern-Day “Roman” Aqueduct For Florida
The west coast of Florida remains trapped in an ongoing drought. In Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties (Tampa and St. Petersburg/Clearwater) severe restrictions on water use are in place. Even the use of reclaimed water for lawns and gardens is now restricted. The rainy season is not yet here; but in past years the amount of rainfall received during the wet months was far below the historical average, so that reservoirs and ground water supplies have never had a chance to recover.
The situation is quite different in northern Florida, in the Panhandle and all across the State close to the Georgia border. The weather in those parts of the State is generally wetter, and more consistently so, than the weather farther south.
Yesterday, our local St. Petersburg Times carried a story (with photographs) of the damage which is now being inflicted in Madison County (which borders Georgia) by floodwaters from the Withlacoochee and Suwannee Rivers. The storms which produced the rain moved from west to east across the Panhandle over the past week, to the point at which the Withlacoochee crested at 89 feet, four feet above the record set in 1948. So far, the rising floodwaters have destroyed or caused severe damage to almost 200 homes and lesser damage to 500 more, all areas combined. Two people are known dead, and one person is missing.
Quite apart from the possibility of reducing the tally of deaths, personal injury, and property damage which even a partial remedy for river flooding in these areas might entail, it boggles the mind just to consider the sheer waste of so much fresh water. Most of that damaging flood water will be gone forever as it eventually finds its way to the Gulf of Mexico. That’s a shame, because so much of it could be put to good use in the west coast, central, and other parts of the State where it is so desperately needed. The waste is not just limited to damaging flood waters, either. The “top of Florida” is blessed with more rainfall, on average, than it needs. Obviously, the flow of river water into the Gulf represents a volume of water which has not been put to good use.
In passing, we acknowledge that the flow of a certain amount of river water into the Gulf is said to be necessary for the health of the shellfish beds near the coastline.
Even so, it seems inadmissible to stand by and do nothing but watch a surfeit of water in the northern counties lay waste and then go to waste while there is such a great need for water in other areas of the State. Surely there is a partial remedy which might ameliorate the problems in the affected sections.
The Romans found a way to move big volumes of water over considerable distances. Surely we can build on their success - and on successes over the centuries since that time - by constructing an Aqueduct system to bring excess water from the northern Florida counties to drier areas to the south.
The best part is that the right-of-way is already in place! It’s called Interstate 10 and Interstate 75. Take a peek at a map of Florida. Find the intersection of I-10 and I-75. The Suwannee and Withlacoochee Rivers are close by, as are other rivers. There are others to the west, and I-10 probably crosses every one of them.
Excess water could be fed into the Aqueduct lying above-ground or underground in the median of I-10 at various points along its route, and then fed south toward Tampa and St. Petersburg/Clearwater in that part of the Aqueduct lying within the median of I-75 and I-275. Do you see how obvious that is?
If ever there was a perfectly-planned right-of-way for a particular purpose, although not part of the design at the outset, this is it.
There would be hurdles. There always are. Will and determination were invented for the purpose of overcoming hurdles.
It seems to me that the construction and operation of The Florida Aqueduct is an undertaking which private capital should undertake. It need not cost the State a penny.
Let’s see whether anyone steps up to the plate.
.,.,.,.,.,.
William Kurtz
Palm Harbor, Florida
April 11, 2009
The author is a retired corporate CEO and attorney, and a long-time investor. He has passed the NASD Series 65 Investment Adviser exam. He publishes his Investment Newsletter and Action Suggestions three times per week at http://www.candlewave.com/ The Action Suggestions provide specific Safety Stops on major Indexes; a review of the major Indexes; an individual review of each of the Gold, Silver, and Crude Oil markets; an individual review of each of the Dow 30 stocks and of selected non-Dow stocks; a review of five popular Forex pairs; and his Daily Commodities Report. The Daily Commodities Report is also available as a free-standing service at http://www.commoditiesjunction.com/ The Operating Manual for his copyrighted “Candelaabra” technical analysis trading system for all financial markets is also available through its own website at candlesticksonsteroids.com and via info@candlewave.com
Silicon Valley is known for both innovation and hype. Recently, this pool of innovation has extended beyond bandwidth to the protection the environment. Google and Yahoo, the search engine giants, are both headquartered in the Valley and have been making headlines by greening their offices, reducing energy consumption, and carbon trading. The PR motivations are obvious, but are the green benefits really there? To set apart the hype from reality, we have analyzed the green value of both Google and Yahoo’s headquarter facilities.
We looked at the ecological services provided by green landscape features such as trees and open space (i.e. grass). Grass and trees are pervious surfaces, meaning they allow water to permeate into the ground. Roofs, sidewalks, patios, and asphalt parking lots are examples of impervious surfaces, where rainwater drains into the public storm drains. Heavy metals, oil, and other pollutants are carried off parking lots in rainwater, which often lead directly to open water habitats, where fish, birds, and reptiles live.
In terms of ecological services, trees and grass have been proven to:
1. Remove and store carbon from the atmosphere,
2. Remove certain airborne pollutants,
3. Permits rainwater to seep into the ground as opposed to draining into the stormdrains, and
4. Remove certain waterborne pollutants.
Here is a look at how green Google and Yahoo really are and how the measure up against each other.
Google Green Report
Google’s headquarters, the Googleplex, covers 44 acres, nearly 50% of which is grass or tree canopy. This is an impressive paved to open space ratio. The grass and trees on the Googleplex remove roughly 2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.04 tons per year per acre. In addition, 530 lbs. of air pollution are removed per year (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter), or 12 lbs. per year per acre. It was assumed that the parking lot of the Googleplex is asphalt, and not a type of porous pavement, so the cost of managing rainfall runoff from the Googleplex is $4,474 per year, or $103 per year per acre. The abundance of grass and tree canopy on the Googleplex go a long way to offset the water quality impacts of the paved surfaces (mainly the parking lot). On average, the grass and trees reduce water pollution by 6%, as opposed to the entire property being paved.
Yahoo Green Report
The Yahoo headquarters, Yahooplex, covers 28 acres, a third of which is grass or tree canopy. This is a classic ratio of paved to open space for large office complexes in California. So far, par for the course. The Yahooplex removes 0.36 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.01 tons per year per acre. 114 lbs. of air pollutants are removed per year, or 4 lbs. per year per acre. In terms of rainfall, the cost associated with runoff is $9,219 per year, or $331 per year per acre. The grass and tree canopy help offset the paved areas with a 2.3% reduction in water pollution as opposed to the entire property being paved.
The final green analysis?
Google kicks Yahoo’s butt, largely due to the forethought, or luxury, of the Googleplex having 50% of its property surface providing green services. The good news for both Google and Yahoo is that over time, as trees grow, so will the tree’s canopy and mass, thus storing more carbon and removing more air pollutants.
Green next steps for both Google and Yahoo is to:
Install porous parking surfaces, allowing up to 80% of rainwater to seep into the ground,
Install green roofs, absorbing rainwater while reducing cooling costs and energy consumption, and
Planting larger trees on the south and west sides of the buildings to reduce cooling costs and energy consumption.
While we crunched the hard numbers to settle the Google vs. Yahoo green debate, this report illuminates the great opportunity that awaits these two Silicon Valley giants to harness the ecological services of green surfaces.
Chris Erichsen is a GIS Mapping consultant with the Erichsen Group, GIS and Mapping in northern California. He has over 10 yrs of GIS experience and helps many industries around the world apply GIS mapping technology. Learn more examples of GIS mapping capabilities.
Of all the outlandish clean-energy ideas out there, space-based solar power has always seemed like one of the most intriguing. The rough concept is that satellites would gather solar energy while floating in orbit (and, lucky them, …
When solar power was invented, it had very limited uses and was thought to be useful for bigger industries or government only. The most common use of solar.
The issue of our time is climate change or global warming. With the increased public discussion citizens are taking it seriously and taking steps to reduce.
In my four-article series on water use (The Resource Matrix), I took you on a journey to reveal the layers of The Resource Matrix in order to help you understand how water will be a highly contested commodity tomorrow, possibly as much as oil is fought over today.
You learned about your water footprint and a website where you can calculate it, virtual water and virtual water transfers, whereby choices here affect water availability elsewhere, to the point of some people not having enough water to drink in order to produce inexpensive dyed cotton, along with insane choices such as growing crops in the desert.
You learned that on average it takes 1854 to 3000 gallons to produce one pound of beef.
Yep, it’s it’s been a great journey through the sidetrip city of the Resource Matrix.
Today, we’ve found the on-ramp to the Green Lighting Interstate and are driving to take a look at water use in generating electricity.
For a simple reason. It takes a lot of water to produce electricity.
How much? 5% of all US water? 10%? Can’t be as high as 25%?
Electricity and water?
I thought the issue was fossil fuels and greenhouse gases
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated water use in the United States in 2000.
Their grand total: 408 billion gallons per day withdrawn for all uses.
The number 1 spot, weighing in at 48%, was thermoelectric power.
Irrigation earned the runner-up prize at 34%.
The 195 billion gallons need to come from somewhere, and actions have consequences. Environmental ones, as in 40 million fish in the Great Lakes killed each year due to being trapped against water intake devices. That’s a lot of Friday night fish dinners.
How much water is used in generating electricity?
Large fossil fuel and nuclear plants require incredible quantities of water for cooling and ongoing maintenance.
Water for thermoelectric power is used in generating electricity with steam-driven turbine generators. It uses 48% of all water in the US.
According to the Pace Energy and Climate Center, the amount of water used for power plant cooling varies by each specific power plant’s electricity generating technology and size. Nuclear reactors require the most water for cooling, and baseload fossil fuel power plants come in second.
The Salem Nuclear Generating Station alone takes 3 billion gallons a day from the Delaware Bay, according to the Pace Energy and Climate Center.
Nationally:
Steam electric generating plants across the nation draw in more than 200 billion gallons per day.
Nuclear and fossil fuel power plants drink over 185 billion gallons of water per day.
Geothermal power plants add another 2 billion or so gallons a day.
Most renewable energy technologies require little or no water for cooling.
These numbers are starting to sound like the same ones the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank use.
Imagine watching your favorite science program where astronomers explain that the universe is 78 billion light-years wide (78 billion units of 5,878,630,000,000 miles). There is absolutely nothing in our experience to help us wrap our mind around it.
How much is 3 billion gallons per day?
The Delaware Bay feeds Salem Nuclear Generating Station 3 billion gallons a day.
Imagine this rectangle: a football field with end zones (360 feet long x 160 feet wide). Then add to it walls on each side of the rectangle to create a container to hold the 3 billion gallons you pour into it.
How high do you need to make those walls to contain 3 billion gallons? 6915 feet high. Or 1.3 miles.
Maybe 6915 feet high is still hard to imagine. So how deep do you cover the field in order to feed the Salem plant every minute? Answer: 5 feet deep. Every minute.
48% of all water use: We’re Number One!
How much is 195 billion gallons per day?
Using the USGS figure for 2000, thermoelectric power nationwide used 195 billion gallons a day, or 48% of all water used in the US. My guess is the water use has grown since then.
How high are the walls on our football field now? 449,475 feet or 85 miles high. We’re back to US Treasury and astronomy numbers again.
So, let’s get a higher-level view to help us.
Lake Erie holds 116 cubic miles of water.
Nationally, thermoelectric power uses 195 billion gallons a day - or 64.2 cubic miles a year.
We drain Lake Erie every 22 months.
But the water used is returned to its source.
So what’s the issue about water use?
Power generation returns 98% of the water back to its source (bay, lake, river, ocean).
It’s the environmental consequences.
The Pace Energy and Climate Center explains it neatly:
Withdrawal of large volumes of surface water for either power plant cooling or hydropower generation can kill fish, larvae and other organisms trapped against intake structures (impinged), or swept up (entrained) in the flow through the different sections of a power plant.
Examples include:
The Salem Nuclear Generating Station is responsible for an annual 11 percent reduction in weakfish and 31 percent reduction in bay anchovy.
At the Indian Point 2 and 3 reactors on the Hudson River, the number of fish impinged totaled over 1.5 million fish in 1987.
The 90 power plants using once-through-cooling on the Great Lakes kill in excess of 40 million fish per year due to impingement. (Once-through cooling needs a continual flow of new water, and uses 30 to 50 times that of a closed cycle system. Closed cycles cool down water from steam then reuse it.)
The diversion of water out of the river removes water for healthy in-stream ecosystems:
Stretches below dams are often completely de-watered.
Fluctuations in water flow from peaking operations create a “tidal effect,” disrupting the downstream riparian community that supports its unique ecosystem.
A dam’s impoundment slows water flows, which hinders natural downstream migration of many fish species.
By slowing river flows, dams also allow silt to collect on river and reservoir bottoms and bury fish spawning habitat. Silt trapped above dams accumulates heavy metals and other pollutants. Disrupting the natural flow of sediments in rivers also leads to erosion of riverbeds downstream of the dam and increases risks of floods.
The impoundment of water by hydropower facilities fundamentally reshapes the physical habitat from a riverine to an artificial pond community.
This often eliminates native populations of fish and other wildlife.
Dams also impede the upstream and downstream movement of fish and other wildlife, and prevent the flow of plants and nutrients. This impact is most significant on migratory fish, which are born in the river and must migrate downstream early in life to the ocean and then migrate upstream again to lay their eggs (or “spawn”).
As mentioned above, withdrawal of water into turbines can also impinge or entrain significant numbers of fish.
The cleanest kilowatt is the one never used:
Back to those compact fluorescent lamps and LEDs
PowerScorecard.org explains the solution:
By re-directing electricity dollars to support environmentally benign energy resources, consumers are empowered, in states that offer supply choice, to influence the existing generating resources that are deployed to meet demand.
They can also support the construction of new and cleaner electricity resources that will be built to meet overall growth in demand in the future. By supporting these power options, consumers can minimize many water use and consumption impacts. Still, directing your dollars to cleaner power products in no way helps remediate damages that already have occurred. Consumers can stop the construction of new hydropower facilities or alter conditions of siting and operation, but they cannot undo previous environmental degradation that occurred at existing hydropower facilities.
In short, reduce your use of electricity.
More Info:
We used several sources for this article, including the PowerScorecard.org website, which is produced by the Pace Energy and Climate Center, which is part of the Pace University School of Law’s Center for Environmental Legal Studies, Pace University, White Plains, New York.
Ratings of Electric Power Choices for some service areas.
More info on electricity and the environment:
Technologies
Climate change
Acid rain
Ozone depletion
Water use (our article today)
Water quality
Land: on-site and off-site impacts
Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .
To your green, brighter future,
Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19
And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.
In more and more industries, the exact knowledge of particle contamination is gaining in importance. Contamination of materials in dimensions of a few micrometers was mainly of concern for the pharmaceutical and semiconductor industries. However, not only manufacturers of circuit board components, but also traditional car parts suppliers face new demands on particle recognition and contamination source identification.
Cleanliness for the automotive parts manufacturers has become a huge topic in today’s ever challenging continuous improvement world. The need to define, measure and control the levels of particulate contamination on product is the new norm for suppliers and automotive OEM’s.
Cleanliness directly relates to product warranties, reliability, performance and safety issues. It has long been known that a dirty product gives us poor quality and low life expectancy. The dirtier the transmission from new, the less time it will last.
It is crucial now to identify particles and their source so that effective elimination can be achieved. Residual contamination consists of particles that persist on the component’s surface after the final step in manufacturing. Such contaminants are introduced via parts from suppliers or arise during processing. After vehicle assembly, the contaminant particles can cause severe damage, loss of function or reduce the lifetime of the product.
Cleanliness is defined as the contamination level of a component surface. Common measures to quantify the cleanliness are mass of the contaminants as well as number, size of the dirt particles. In general, the customer will specify contamination limits. The supplier then has to maintain these levels and document them regularly by means of contamination analysis.
The analysis of the contamination has to be proven to not affect the result and to be effective in evaluating all the contamination present. Methods of extraction and evaluation are specified in the international standard ISO 16232. Particular attention must be paid to the extraction method to ensure no contributing factors are introduced to the evaluation. There are different methods of counting the resulting extracted particles but by far the most accurate, repeatable and cost effective is automated microscope analysis. The microscope with software can scan the filter membrane; sort the particles by size class and even determine basic material composition (metal, non-metal, fiber). Once the data is gathered a custom report can be generated based on the customer requirements.
Saving the rainforests and environment is not an easy task. It took many years of neglect, mainly on our part, in keeping the environment clean. We polluted our air and our water through chemicals and different types of bacteria and debris. We used paper products that were not recyclable and or were not biodegradable.
Rome wasn’t built in a day as the old cliche states, but we managed to ruin our planet over the years and unfortunately it will take longer than a day to rid the Earth of all the garbage we have dumped on it. It is so easy to throw a piece of paper out of your car window, instead of finding a receptacle to dispose of it, or to throw empty cans in with your regular garbage instead of separating them for the recycle pickup or to bring bottles back to the store. Let’s not forget the broken down refrigerators, t.v.s, mattresses, etc on the side of the road.
I have traveled to third world countries and it breaks my heart to see that. They have no means of garbage disposal and they certainly don’t know how to recycle. Most of the people, although poor, take pride and keep their properties neat and debris free, others do not care. The same goes for people who live here on Earth. Some are proud of what they own and others could care less.
By the inch it’s a cinch, by the yard it’s hard. If we all do our part in what ever little way, we can help improve Mother Earth and make it liveable for generations to come. Let’s start by picking up our litter, don’t let the water run when brushing your teeth, use rags instead of paper towels, carpool if you can, don’t discard items on the side of the road to make it look unsightly, but for the most part…. Be Proud Of Where You Live and What You Have!!!!!!
“Nothing Leaves An Impression Like A Lasting One”….
Under the relevant European Directives, an Environmental Statement is the formal product of an Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental Statements are often organised in a way that describes the environmental baseline, mitigation and effects for each type of environmental receptors: ecology, water resources, archaeological resources, human beings etcetera. Contaminated land is often managed in the same ways as the various environmental receptor groups, although it is principally a cause of impacts rather than a receptor. It also often refers to a pre-existing condition and its damaging effect is on a variety of different receptors such as human health, structures and buildings, surface water features, groundwater features and ecology. This often means that land contamination specialists struggle with integrating the issue in a logical manner in an Environmental Statement. Sticking to the structured approach of an environmental statement is essential to ensure a clear description of the existing environmental condition, the potential impacts and the actions taken to avoid, minimise, offset or manage the impacts. This article is based on UK practice and legislation, although fundamentally the issues should be similar within other contexts.
Contaminated land is in many countries considered on a source-pathway-receptor basis. This is important to understand the impact land development can have on the issue of contaminated land. Development can interfere with any of these three elements. It can introduce sensitive receptors by changing the use of land, for instance by building new residential units on a site that was previously used for heavy industry. New pathways linking pre-existing contamination with an existing receptor can be formed, for instance when piling through a non-permeable layer connecting a layer of contaminated soils with a deep aquifer. Finally by introducing pollutants on the site a development project can introduce a potential source of contamination.
The second element to consider is the structured approach of an environmental statement. Apart from the introductory and procedural elements described in the environmental statement, a good environmental statement comprised the following sections:
environmental baseline conditions
potential environmental impacts
mitigating measures
residual environmental impacts
There should be a logical relation between the different sections. Any receptor that is affected and described in the section about the potential impacts and effects should have been introduced in the section describing the baseline. Any material impact should be assigned a mitigation or management action etc. Implementing this structure allows a clear description and understanding of the environmental impacts and the way it will be managed.
Applying these principles to contaminated land will result in a baseline condition section that describes the current sensitive receptors that are present within the potential sphere of influence of the development, the sensitivity and importance of these receptors, the presence of any pre-existing contamination and the presence of actual and potential pathways. The next section, potential environmental impacts or effects, first considers the impacts that the development will have in terms of the introduction (or removal) of sensitive receptors and the creation of new pathways between existing and potential pollution sources and receptors. In addition this section will describe the potential environmental impacts that are associated with the introduction of new sources of contamination. In the third section, mitigating measures, a description of the actions to mitigate each of the impacts that may occur should be provided. Finally a statement of the residual impact of the development is provided in the last section: residual environmental impacts.