Category: carbon footprint

  • Time to DrawDown and Look at All the Sky, not just Half

    In the US, we often
    characterize women hitting the Glass Ceiling where men are in the highest
    positions of companies – executives and board rooms. Interestingly, men don’t
    see much of a glass ceiling, maybe because they are usually upstairs and not
    looking down. Old white men may be complicit and complacent in women knocking
    at the other side of the glass, but world-wide the imperative to give women
    respect and opportunity is critical, with profound implications for the world
    population and sustainable economic development. It’s a human and a humanity
    issue for everyone everywhere.
    Let’s talk about Drawdown and Half
    the Sky
     (Wikipedia contributors, 2018). Both are bestselling books and
    global initiatives.
    Everyone should be
    familiar with each of these.
    Half the Sky is a bestselling book by Kristof and
    WuDunn (2009), a movie, and an activist movement. See Half the Sky
    movement: 
    http://www.halftheskymovement.org/
    Women are not allowed to
    do many things in many countries. The limitations on women in many cases mean
    that only half of the human resources in a country/area are utilized. It’s a
    lot like seeing only half of the sky!
    Women are often not encouraged
    to go to school. In many cultures girls are expected to drop out of school very
    early, say age 11 to 13, so they can get married and/or work. (Or worse,
    funneled into sex slavery.) Encouraging women to stay in school longer solve
    many problems simultaneously. At an older age, with education, they are better
    able to do family planning and more productive work. This is key to population
    control. Educating women is key to reaching a global population of 9B or less,
    instead of 11B or more.
    In terms of economic
    development, a better use of women resources is a critical asset to the work
    economy. In fact, women are absolutely critical to sustainability efforts:
    lower population, higher GDP, higher per capita GDP, and reduced environmental
    impacts on the planet.
    There’s an effort call
    DrawDown (
    www.DrawDown.org) that looks for the best initiatives, using the current
    technology that will make the biggest difference in CO2 emissions and global
    warming. Groups use the best, peer-reviewed, information available to analyze
    each initiative. Initiatives are evaluated on the emissions savings as well as
    the actual cost saving on a world-wide bases. When taken together, two women’s
    initiatives, ranked #6 and #7, would move up to #1 position. The two categories
    are: educating women and family planning.
    Note that the three
    women/girl initiatives are ranked 6, 7 and 62; however, combined, they
    represent arguably the best single initative to address in terms of impact on
    global warming reduction. And, oh, by the way, they will contribute massively
    to world GDP and assist dramatically with cost savings compared to business as
    usual.
    The book Drawdown and
    the web site Drawdown.org are edited by Paul Hawken (2017).
    The first table shows
    the summary by sector the top 80 Drawdown initiatives. These
    initiatives are all things that we should do, no matter how aggressively you
    think our action toward Global Warming might be. It would be simply
    irresponsible not to address these issues. Note that an initiative related to
    utilities is ranked 77 but has 3 parts; therefore, there the top 80 lists is
    actually 82 items (see the Top 80 list below).
    We need to be more
    proactively regarding women and girl’s rights; or, we could continue to see
    only half the sky.
    (Including Net Costs to Implement and
    Projected Savings)
    Summary by Sectors of the top 80 Initiatives
    Sector
    Initatives
    CO2e GT Reduction
    Net Costs (US$B)
    Savings (US$B)
    Buildings and Cities
                  15
                                       55
                            4,927
                     17,906
    Electricity Generation
                  20
                                     246
                            4,896
                     21,447
    Food
                  17
                                     322
                               777
                     10,017
    Land Use
                    9
                                     150
                               131
                       1,199
    Materials
                    7
                                     112
                            1,125
                       1,040
    Transport
                  11
                                       46
                         17,753
                     22,666
    Women and Girls
                    3
                                     121
                                     
                             88
    TOTAL
                  82
                                 1,051
                         29,609
                     74,362
    Source: Paul Hawken
    (Ed.), 2017, retrieved from www.DrawDown.org.
    * Note. Energy Storage
    and Grid are ranked 77, but represent 3 options, so 82 entries are in this
    list.
    See
    the top 80 table below.
    References
    Kristof,
    N., & WuDunn, S. (2009). Half the
    sky: Turning oppression into opportunity for women worldwide.
    New York, NY:
    Alfred A. Knopf.
    Hawken,
    P. (2017). Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan every proposed to reverse
    global warming
    . (P. Hawken, Ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
    Wikipedia
    contributors. (2018, April 9). Half the Sky. In Wikipedia, The Free
    Encyclopedia
    . Retrieved 15:55, April 10, 2018, from
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Half_the_Sky&oldid=835610476
    (Including Net Costs to Implement and Projected Savings)
    Total CO2e (GT)
     Atmospheric
    Net Costs
    Savings
    Rank
    Solution
    Sector
     reduction
    US $B
    US $B
    1
    Refrigerant Management
    Materials
    89.74
    N/A
    ($902.77)
    2
    Wind Turbines
    (Onshore)
    Electricity Generation
    84.6
    $1,225.37
    $7,425.00
    3
    Reduced Food Waste
    Food
    70.53
    N/A
    N/A
    4
    Plant-Rich Diet
    Food
    66.11
    N/A
    N/A
    5
    Tropical Forests
    Land Use
    61.23
    N/A
    N/A
    6
    Educating Girls
    Women and Girls
    59.6
    N/A
    N/A
    7
    Family Planning
    Women and Girls
    59.6
    N/A
    N/A
    8
    Solar Farms
    Electricity Generation
    36.9
    ($80.60)
    $5,023.84
    9
    Silvopasture
    Food
    31.19
    $41.59
    $699.37
    10
    Rooftop Solar
    Electricity Generation
    24.6
    $453.14
    $3,457.63
    11
    Regenerative
    Agriculture
    Food
    23.15
    $57.22
    $1,928.10
    12
    Temperate Forests
    Land Use
    22.61
    N/A
    N/A
    13
    Peatlands
    Land Use
    21.57
    N/A
    N/A
    14
    Tropical Staple Trees
    Food
    20.19
    $120.07
    $626.97
    15
    Afforestation
    Land Use
    18.06
    $29.44
    $392.33
    16
    Conservation
    Agriculture
    Food
    17.35
    $37.53
    $2,119.07
    17
    Tree Intercropping
    Food
    17.2
    $146.99
    $22.10
    18
    Geothermal
    Electricity Generation
    16.6
    ($155.48)
    $1,024.34
    19
    Managed Grazing
    Food
    16.34
    $50.48
    $735.27
    20
    Nuclear
    Electricity Generation
    16.09
    $0.88
    $1,713.40
    21
    Clean Cookstoves
    Food
    15.81
    $72.16
    $166.28
    22
    Wind Turbines
    (Offshore)
    Electricity Generation
    14.1
    $545.30
    $762.50
    23
    Farmland Restoration
    Food
    14.08
    $72.24
    $1,342.47
    24
    Improved Rice
    Cultivation
    Food
    11.34
    N/A
    $519.06
    25
    Concentrated Solar
    Electricity Generation
    10.9
    $1,319.70
    $413.85
    26
    Electric Vehicles
    Transport
    10.8
    $14,148.00
    $9,726.40
    27
    District Heating
    Buildings and Cities
    9.38
    $457.10
    $3,543.50
    28
    Multistrata
    Agroforestry
    Food
    9.28
    $26.76
    $709.75
    29
    Wave and Tidal
    Electricity Generation
    9.2
    $411.84
    ($1,004.70)
    30
    Methane Digesters
    (Large)
    Electricity Generation
    8.4
    $201.41
    $148.83
    31
    Insulation
    Buildings and Cities
    8.27
    $3,655.92
    $2,513.33
    32
    Ships
    Transport
    7.87
    $915.93
    $424.38
    33
    LED Lighting
    (Household)
    Buildings and Cities
    7.81
    $323.52
    $1,729.54
    34
    Biomass
    Electricity Generation
    7.5
    $402.31
    $519.35
    35
    Bamboo
    Land Use
    7.22
    $23.79
    $264.80
    36
    Alternative Cement
    Materials
    6.69
    ($273.90)
    N/A
    37
    Mass Transit
    Transport
    6.57
    N/A
    $2,379.73
    38
    Forest Protection
    Land Use
    6.2
    N/A
    N/A
    39
    Indigenous Peoples’
    Land Management
    Land Use
    6.19
    N/A
    N/A
    40
    Trucks
    Transport
    6.18
    $543.54
    $2,781.63
    41
    Solar Water
    Electricity Generation
    6.08
    $2.99
    $773.65
    42
    Heat Pumps
    Buildings and Cities
    5.2
    $118.71
    $1,546.66
    43
    Airplanes
    Transport
    5.05
    $662.42
    $3,187.80
    44
    LED Lighting
    (Commercial)
    Buildings and Cities
    5.04
    ($205.05)
    $1,089.63
    45
    Building Automation
    Buildings and Cities
    4.62
    $68.12
    $880.55
    46
    Water Saving – Home
    Materials
    4.61
    $72.44
    $1,800.12
    47
    Bioplastic
    Materials
    4.3
    $19.15
    N/A
    48
    In-Stream Hydro
    Electricity Generation
    4
    $202.53
    $568.36
    49
    Cars
    Transport
    4
    ($598.69)
    $1,761.72
    50
    Cogeneration
    Electricity Generation
    3.97
    $279.25
    $566.93
    51
    Perennial Biomass
    Land Use
    3.33
    $77.94
    $541.89
    52
    Coastal Wetlands
    Land Use
    3.19
    N/A
    N/A
    53
    System of Rice
    Intensification
    Food
    3.13
    N/A
    $677.83
    54
    Walkable Cities
    Buildings and Cities
    2.92
    N/A
    $3,278.24
    55
    Household Recycling
    Materials
    2.77
    $366.92
    $71.13
    56
    Industrial Recycling
    Materials
    2.77
    $366.92
    $71.13
    57
    Smart Thermostats
    Buildings and Cities
    2.62
    $74.16
    $640.10
    58
    Landfill Methane
    Buildings and Cities
    2.5
    ($1.82)
    $67.57
    59
    Bike Infrastructure
    Buildings and Cities
    2.31
    ($2,026.97)
    $400.47
    60
    Composting
    Food
    2.28
    ($63.72)
    ($60.82)
    61
    Smart Glass
    Buildings and Cities
    2.19
    $932.30
    $325.10
    62
    Women Smallholders
    Women and Girls
    2.06
    N/A
    $87.60
    63
    Telepresence
    Transport
    1.99
    $127.72
    $1,310.59
    64
    Methane Digesters
    (Small)
    Electricity Generation
    1.9
    $15.50
    $13.90
    65
    Nutrient Management
    Food
    1.81
    N/A
    $102.32
    66
    High-speed Rail
    Transport
    1.52
    $1,038.42
    $368.10
    67
    Farmland Irrigation
    Food
    1.33
    $216.16
    $429.67
    68
    Waste-to-Energy
    Electricity Generation
    1.1
    $36.00
    $19.82
    69
    Electric Bikes
    Transport
    0.96
    $106.75
    $226.07
    70
    Recycled Paper
    Materials
    0.9
    $573.48
    N/A
    71
    Water Distribution
    Buildings and Cities
    0.87
    $137.37
    $903.11
    72
    Biochar
    Food
    0.81
    N/A
    N/A
    73
    Green Roofs
    Buildings and Cities
    0.77
    $1,393.29
    $988.46
    74
    Trains
    Transport
    0.52
    $808.64
    $313.86
    75
    Ridesharing
    Transport
    0.32
    N/A
    $185.56
    76
    Micro Wind
    Electricity Generation
    0.2
    $36.12
    $19.90
    77
    Energy Storage
    (Distributed)*
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    77
    Energy Storage
    (Utilities)*
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    77
    Grid Flexibility*
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    78
    Microgrids
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    79
    Net Zero Buildings
    Buildings and Cities
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    80
    Retrofitting
    Buildings and Cities
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    Sum of top initiatives
                  1,050.99
        29,609.30
        74,362.37
    Source: Paul Hawken
    (Ed.), 2017, retrieved from www.DrawDown.org.
    * Note. Energy Storage
    and Grid are ranked 77, but represent 3 options, so 82 entries are in this
    list.

  • Trump of Sustainability – Paul Bunyan tromps again!

    Sustainability efforts take a big hit with the Trump election to president.
    Some forces are bigger than he, however.
    Congress didn’t act on most things sustainable-ish, so much of the Obama efforts have been by executive order and by regulations. The EPA on coal, for example. The right way to regulate emissions in general — and fossil fuels specifically — is by a carbon tax (or cap n trade). With a carbon tax, then all subsidies of all kinds can be readily removed and let the markets take care of resource allocation. New power and retirement of existing production takes care of itself.
    So now, we can expect the EPA restrictions to be systematically eroded.
    But, even if the EPA is removed from the picture, we should never expect to see another coal power plant. NatGas is so much cheaper — in all the spellings of the word — and dirt cheap. See our blog post on coal here.
    One would hope, however, that Trump would take on bigger and more immediate issues before attacking the Paris agreement on climate change (COP21, and COP22 starting as we speak in Marrakesh). That is taking on a big segment of the US population and the will of the entire world that, up until Paris a year ago, has never agreed on many thing since the Montreal agreement on reducing fluorocarbons (and the recent extension of this in Oct-Nov 2016).
    When we saw Virginia coming in all red, and only flipping blue based on metro areas (DC), you knew that Trumps message had really grabbed traction with the blue collar coal miners and such.
    Sadly, the idea of putting coal back to work, is a painful lie to the mining community. Coal is never going to come back. Countries like Germany have totally retired the coal power. Even China may not put any more coal power plants to work; they’re trying to get the air clean enough for people to breath.
    The idea from Hillary was that she would make efforts to transition the “dead and dying back in my little [coal] town”. The promise from Trump to put coal miners back to work is sadly a very cruel promise. Wishing it were true, does not make it so.
    You have to feel for the miners though.
    First we backed out of the Kyoto protocol, now we will back out of Paris. You have to really feel for those countries 200 countries that have been pushing so hard to address the huge footprint we are having on the planet, while the US, the Paul Bunyan of footprints, is putting on his BIG boots to go tromping again.
    An added note is the horror story of a team that has been advising Trump on Energy and Environment, aka the agency formerly know as the EPA. This Scientific America article was in Sept 26th.

  • Microsoft, Owens Corning Join Climate Declaration · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader

    Microsoft, Owens Corning Join Climate Declaration · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader:  BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy) calls climate change “one of America’s greatest economic opportunities of the 21st century.

    That’s right, opportunity.

    Microsoft and Owens-Corning have joined the Climate Declaration (spearheaded by CERES).

    This is a very nice & concise article on the more that 650 major corporations worldwide that have stepped up to the plat to take and active stance on sustainability.

    Microsoft is due to be Carbon neutral by the end of 2013: http://sustainzine.blogspot.com/2012/06/social-irresponsibility-energy-and-cost.html . . . Turns out they made it with a few months to spare: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/10/03/microsoft-achieved-carbon-neutrality-nrdc-says/

    So many businesses are on board, now all we need is a little help from the gov.

    Keywords: CERES, zero carbon, carbon footprint, energy policy, Microsoft, Carbon Declaration

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Why Won't Yahoo! Let Employees Work From Home? – Businessweek

    Why Won’t Yahoo! Let Employees Work From Home? – Businessweek:

    Boy Mayer is gonna cause a lot of shake here with the everyone-has-to-travel-to-work policy.

    Apparently (Today Show) she now as a nursery set up next door to her office for her new convenience. That helps new parents, maybe, but not the ones with kids in school or those people who live a longer way from the office.

    But Mayer is shaking it up.

    There has long been the debate about the down side of work-at-home (WAH). And a tech leader like Yahoo  might just be a place to face-to-face interaction that is lost from WAH.

    But, I fear that making everyone drive to work is a major setback to telecommuting efforts that are so very beneficial to the efforts of sustainability.

    Studies show that the true costs of telecommuting are far closer to $40,000 per year than to the $5,000 cost of gas. Most of that savings goes to the employer. Closer to $45,000 if you want to include the less-tangible costs of externalities such as infrastructure and greenhouse gases (GHGs).

    Key words:  WAH, telecommuting. Work-at-home, sustainability, carbon footprint, GHG, teleworking, remote working, time shifting.
    First posted at www.SustainZine.com. Repeated here.
    ‘via Blog this’

  • Why Won’t Yahoo! Let Employees Work From Home? – Businessweek

    Why Won’t Yahoo! Let Employees Work From Home? – Businessweek:

    Oh boy, Mayer is gonna cause a lot of shake up  here with her everyone-has-to-travel-to-work policy.

    Apparently (Today Show) she now as a nursery set up next door to her office for her new convenience. That helps new parents, maybe, but not the ones with kids in school or those people who live a longer way from the office.

    But Mayer is shaking it up.

    There has long been the debate about the down side of work-at-home (WAH). And a tech leader like Yahoo  might just be a place to face-to-face interaction that is lost from WAH.

    But, I fear that making everyone drive to work is a major setback to telecommuting efforts that are so very beneficial to the efforts of sustainability.

    Studies show that the true costs of telecommuting are far closer to $40,000 per year than to the $5,000 cost of gas. Most of that savings goes to the employer. Closer to $45,000 if you want to include the less-tangible costs of externalities such as infrastructure and greenhouse gases (GHGs).

    ‘via Blog this’