Clean Skies, an energy and environment network, has online video reports that are often interesting. This morning’s had a little tidbit that blew my mind.

Reporter Dee Bhambhani was looking into how the nation’s Capitol building is greening up its act. Workers are installing meters to determine energy use. They’re subbing out incandescent light bulbs with CFLs. They’re composting cafeteria waste.

They’ve also — get this — figured out a way to stop throwing out refrigerators when they are merely dirty.

Here’s how the news unfolded: Allison Rogers, program manager for the green-the-capitol initiative, was talking about immediate gains. She happily noted: “One of the staff had said, ‘you know, we send out refrigerators on a regular basis when members of Congress and their staffs don't want to clean those refrigerators and they want a new one instead.’ And so what she decided to do was find a local green cleaner that cleaned the refrigerators and we sent it back, which obviously is saving money, since we don’t have to buy new refrigerator every time someone doesn’t want to clean it, and it obviously is having a green aspect with the cleaning as well.”

Then, the news report progressed onto the next item.  But I was still sitting there with my mouth open. They toss refrigerators simply because the appliances are  dirty?!

Clearly, if this is the norm, the Capitol has a long way to go in getting greener.

Meanwhile, for the rest of us schmucks, the feds are planning a sequel to the Cash for Clunkers automotive program that offer people up to $200 replace old, energy-sucking appliances with new ones. Details to be announced later this year.
 

(Photo by John Quigley / Spectral Q)

When the Industrial Revolution started, the atmosphere of our home planet had a carbon dioxide concentration of roughly 280 parts per million. That has, of course, increased. We’re now at about 385 parts per million.

The big question is: How high can we go before things get really, really bad?  Before things are irreversible?

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gathered its multitude of scientists and produced its voluminous reports, 450 became the figure of choice. After that, average global temperatures are likely to increase 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, they said.

But now, more and more scientists are saying that’s too high. They say they’re seeing the signs of global warming now, and we can’t afford any more CO2. In fact, we need to reduce. According to recent wire reports, more than 80 of the world’s poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations — places with large populations living near sea level, for instance — have declared that CO2 concentrations must be scaled back to below 350 ppm.

So maybe author and eco-activist Bill McKibben, who started an international campaign to garner public support — and public pressure — for 350 wasn’t so fringe after all. In advance of climate meetings in Copenhagen in December, the group (check them out at www.350.org) is aiming for a “planetary day of action” on Oct. 24.

The mission: “We hope to have actions at hundreds of iconic places around the world - from the Taj Mahal to the Great Barrier Reef to your community - and clear message to world leaders: the solutions to climate change must be equitable, they must be grounded in science, and they must meet the scale of the crisis.”

Yesterday, the movement got a super-size boost from Rajendra Pachauri, the U.N.’s top climate scientist. In an interview with Agence France Presse reporter Marlowe Hood he said that as chairman of the IPCC he couldn’t take a position “because we do not make recommendations.”

Then he continued: “But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target.”
So, like an overweight person who is risking cardiac problems unless he or she reduces, they’re saying the planet has to not just limit its carbon emissions, but reduce them.

NASA scientist James Hansen also has been saying 350 is the limit. In a 2008 article in the journal, Open Atmospheric Science, he and others warned that “If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.”

If they are right, an even bigger question confronts us: How?
 

The Kenny family (Photo: Tight Lines Productions / Bosch)

I just heard from a friend whose dream is to one day build an eco-friendly home in the country. I’d like that, too.

A lucky family in New Brunswick, Canada, is getting one courtesy of Bosch, a technology company. The Kenny family will move into the “Eco Plus Home,” which supposedly will enable them to live for a year — including the Canadian winter —  without consuming any fossil fuels for energy. (So, of course, this doesn’t count things like the fossil fuels used in the manufacture of plastics and other items they might use.)

The family — father Brian, mother Renee and their kids Tyler, 14; Grayson, 12; Shane, 8, and Olivia, 6 -- plan to move into the house, being built in Bathurst, on Sept. 13.  If a family of six can do it -- just think of all the electronics the kids must have! -- well, perhaps there's hope for the rest of us, too. 

Energy balances of the household consumptions will regularly be published on www.ecoplushome.com. The website will also allow the family to share their experience with the public.

Here’s a description of the house from the company: It will use an electric heat pump, a solar thermal system, a photovoltaic system as well as energy-efficient home appliances including an oven, a refrigerator, a dishwasher, a coffee maker, a washing machine and a dryer.

The solar thermal system will generate heat and hot water from free solar radiation, while the heat pump uses geothermal energy. While the heat pump needs electricity to run, the photovoltaic system will generate much more CO2-free electricity in the course of the year than the heat pump will consume. It is even planned to operate an electric car.

Excess electricity will be fed into the public grid and withdrawn when needed. This way, it will be possible for the family to live comfortably in the house even through the harsh Canadian winter, when temperatures may drop to minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit or less, and still achieve a positive energy balance. CO2 emissions from the Eco Plus Home will be close to zero, whereas a conventional home produces an average of eight tons of CO2 per year.
Stay tuned.
 

Scientists who have studied residential areas in California have found that the typical house is linked to about 50 percent more water pollution than previous thought.

The researchers, Lorence Oki and Darren Haver, both of  UC Davis, looked at runoff from rainfall and lawn-watering, which washes fertilizers and other contaminants into storm drains and then in to nearby waterways. They collected samples of runoff from eight residential areas in Sacramento and Orange Counties every one to two weeks and analyzed them for pesticides, pathogens, nutrients and “drinking water constituents of concern.”

Previous estimates of runoff were based on data collected from the wet season.  “Use of pesticides, however, increases noticeably during the dry season due to gardening, and our data contains greater resolution than previous studies,” Oki said. Factoring in more conditions, the researchers found that contamination from homes is likely much higher.

Oddly enough, one of the most prevalent pesticides they detected were compounds used to control ants, leading them to suggest that better ant control products would benefit local waterways.

The scientists presented their research last week at the 238th national meeting of the American Chemical Society.
 

Seems like every week a species from somewhere else shows up in a new area and takes over, wreaking havoc. The latest hotspot: the Galapagos, where non-native mosquitoes are arriving via aircraft and tour boats.

The southern house mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus, already messed up Hawaii. It arrived there, most likely in airplanes, in the late 19th century and had a devastating effect on the islands’ endemic birds.

The new bird house at the Philadelphia Zoo has an exhibit explaining what happened. About 20 to 50 alien species of plants and animals arrive in Hawaii every year, and one of them was the mosquito. It proved an excellent vector for the transmission of diseases among birds, and today most of the surviving avian species live more than 2,000 feet above sea level, where it is too cold for the mosquitoes.

The honeycreeper was particularly hard-hit. Only 19 out of 42 species and subspecies now remain, and many of the extinctions are considered to have been caused by diseases spread by the mosquito.

Now, scientists from the University of Leeds, the Zoological Society of London, the University of Guayaquil, the Galapagos National Park and the Charles Darwin Foundation, have shown that the mosquito is regularly hitching a ride from the mainland to the Galapagos and breeding with existing populations. They’re also spreading via tourist boats that visit the islands.

Arnaud Bataille, a Leeds doctoral researcher said that, on average, the number of mosquitoes per airplane is low, “but many aircraft arrive each day from the mainland in order to service the tourist industry, and the mosquitoes seem able to survive and breed once they leave the plane.”

Fellow researcher Andrew Cunningham said their studies who “that everything is in place for a similar disaster to occur in Galapagos as occurred in Hawaii. Unless immediate and forceful mitigating actions are taken, it is only a matter of time before Galapagos wildlife meet the same fate as the Hawaiian honeycreepers.”

Tourism to these islands, so rich in wildlife, provides a lot of funds. But now, some are wondering if the cost outweighs the benefits.
 

The Fisker Karma

“Experts” have long been saying the popularity of hybrid vehicles is waning, in parallel to lower gas prices. Say it ain’t so? It ain’t!

The Hybrid Owners of America organization reported today that purchases of hybrids in July were up 35 percent from June numbers, and 31.8 percent from the year before.  July sales also reached a record market share of 3.55 percent of new car sales. In comparison, the organization reports, sales of conventional vehicles rose 15.4 percent from June.

July was also the first time a U.S. manufacturer had two of the top four hybrid models in sales — the Ford Escape and Fusion hybrid.

Meanwhile, Fisker Automotive reports from Monterey,  California, that its plug-in hybrid electric vehicle — a PHEV — made its public driving debut last weekend, 19 months after being introduced as a concept.

The 403 hp prototype, called the Fisker Karma, reached a speed of 100 mph, but used no gasoline as it went around the Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca during the Rolex Monterey Historic Automobile Races.
The company reports that the Karma can reach 60 mph in six seconds and a top speed of 125 mph. It can go 50 miles on its Lithium-ion battery and, overall, can  achieve well over 100 mpg. Carbon emissions are also lower than today’s hybrids, Fisker says.

“This demonstration represents a significant milestone for Fisker Automotive and PHEV technology,” said CEO Henrik Fisker in a statement. “The future of clean cars is bright.”

Finally, electric car enthusiasts won’t want to miss this week’s New Yorker profile of Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors.

Philadelphia council members who have long been pushing for a way to limit plastic bag use — and, by extension, plastic bag litter — may want to take note of what’s been happening in Seattle.

Yesterday in a referendum, voters overwhelmingly nixed a 25-cent fee for each bag used.

In May, Philadelphia had proposed the same thing, but the measure was withdrawn from consideration. The full story is here.

The environmental commmittee came back at the issue in June, proposing an all-out ban, but council voted it down. That report is here. Councilmen James Kenney and Frank DiCicco have pledged not to give up on trying to limit plastic bag use.

Here’s the report on yesterday’s Seattle referendum from Associated Press writer Phuong Le:

Seattle voters’ rejection of a 20-cent fee on plastic and paper bags represents a sound defeat for other efforts in U.S. cities to limit the use of the throwaway bags, plastics industry officials said Wednesday.

A referendum on an ordinance to charge the bag fee at grocery, drug and convenience stores was easily defeated in Tuesday’s primary in this liberal city — whose voters are known for taxing themselves to pay for parks, libraries, affordable housing and other causes.

“If they can’t do it there, they can’t do anywhere,” said Stephen Joseph, a San Francisco attorney with SavethePlasticBag.com, who has challenged several plastic bag bans in California.

The ordinance approved by city leaders was to start in January, but the plastics industry bankrolled a referendum to put the question to voters.

The Progressive Bag Affiliates, an arm of the American Chemistry Council, spent $1.4 million to overturn the ordinance, the largest contribution to a local ballot measure in recent history. Supporters raised about $93,000.
Heather Trim, a spokeswoman for the Seattle Green Bag campaign, said other cities will surely look to Seattle’s outcome for cues on how to proceed.

“They’re going to think twice because they know that the ACC is willing to spend as much as needed to defeat it,” said Trim, toxics program manager for People for Puget Sound.

But communities and citizens will also become better aware of the industry’s influence and arm themselves appropriately, she said.

Supporters argued the fee would encourage more reusable bags, cut down on pollution and waste, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The ubiquitous thin, cheap plastic bags have been blamed for littering streets, polluting oceans and harming marine life. The city’s ordinance targeted both paper and plastic sacks after city officials determined that paper bags were worse for the environment.

Adam Parmer, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax, said Seattle voters rejected the bag fee because it was unnecessary, costly and the wrong approach to changing behavior.

Supporters here are now considering an outright ban, Brady Montz, Seattle chairman for the Sierra Club and a spokesman for the pro-fee group, said Wednesday. He noted that San Francisco considered a fee before becoming the first city in the nation to ban plastic bags in 2007.

David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay, an Oakland, Calif., said many cities haven’t been deterred by aggressive lobbying by plastic bag makers.

“Even if a proposal like this fails, the problem continues to grow,” Lewis said. “That’s why I think, ultimately, the efforts to restrict and reduce bag use will be successful.”
 

I wrote in Monday’s GreenSpace column about toilet paper and other household paper products, and how Greenpeace has buried the hatchet after a five-year battle with tissue giant Kimberly-Clark.

Greenpeace mainly objected to K-C’s use of virgin wood pulp — especial from Canada’s Boreal Forest, ancient woodlands that are home to caribou and billions of nesting songbirds. But K-C and other major paper products manufacturers say that Americans demand softness in their paper products (unlike Europeans, which demand toughness). And, they say, virgin pulp is the only way to get it.

Greenpeace and K-C reached a detente after the company agreed to several measures: It promised that by the end of 2011, its North American fiber would contain at least 40 percent content that was either recycled paper or pulp from trees that had been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as sustainably logged. Within that, it promised that after 2011, the company would use no pulp from the Boreal that had not been certified by the council.

It didn’t take long for the skeptics to start up, claiming, basically, “Big whoop.” They felt there was no reason at all to use virgin pulp, certified or not. Ever.

Rolf Skar, Greenpeace’s senior forest campaigner, called the other day from the UN climate negotiations in Germany to defend Greenpeace’s endorsement and put it into context.

He said it wasn’t fair to compare K-C, the largest tissue products manufacturer on earth, with smaller companies. “I hope those companies grow into huge global companies,” but the fact is that, for the moment, they’re not. So they’re a whole lot more nimble.

K-C, on the other hand, simply can’t shift overnight. “In order for them to feed a gigantic mill that makes Kleenex, they need to have a dependable supply,” Sklar said. “We know it’s out there. But there’s a difference between being out there and making sure it ends up at a manufacturing facility in usable quantities. So there’s a gap here.”

What’s important, he said, is that K-C made a commitment that is “unprecedented” in the global paper market. He said it amounted to “a global policy that takes off the table a lot of the last, best forests left on the planet.”

He also felt it was important that K-C was setting an example for other companies. “Once they start distinguishing themselves by using recycled content .. by developing new markets for FSC pulp, then what’s  next? Proctor Gamble and Union Pacific? It’s their move next,” he said.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace plans to update its tissue-buying guide as companies and the industry changes. For now, K-C products are still in the “to be avoided” column.
 

Smithsonian graphic

Coffee, anyone? I’ve been trying to keep stocked with beans certified as bird-friendly, but they’re tough to find. Often, I simply have to pick an organic brand at my grocery story and hope that suffices.

The problem with many of the major brands is that the coffee plants are grown in monocultures on large plantations, often requiring pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer.

The more traditional, earth-friendly way to grow coffee is in the shade of forests, in areas rich with birds and native plants. Organic means that the plants are grown sans the nasty chemicals, but it may not mean the growers have gone all the way to ensure bird habitats, worker rights and a fair price. So clearly there’s a lot more to consider.

I’ve found a local source for bird-friendly certified coffee at the Reading Terminal Market. I wound up passing by one day when I hadn’t expected to and decided to stock up. My pride level shot up. How eco! I didn’t even have to make a special trip.

Once the clerk filled several little bags of it, she looked up. “Do you need a bag?”

Gulp. I realized I hadn’t brought one.

“Yes, please,” I said, chagrined.

She gave me a withering look. “That’s not very bird-friendly,” she said.

For more information, here’s a link to a column I wrote not long ago about coffee.

The Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center has trademarked the "Bird Friendly" seal and has a rigorous program. The Rainforest Alliance certification focuses on sustainability, wildlife and the workers. Audubon has adopted that for its coffees as well.