Another green idea

The Los Angeles Times ran an article April 22, 2008 headlining that L.A. and San Francisco vie for title of “greenest city”. The article lamented the city’s ability to curtail gas guzzling SUV’s but noted one area it has control over are buildings which according to this article “ account for an estimated 43% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., compared with 32% from transportation and 25% from industry.” Reductions can be achieved by a number of measures including efficient heating, air-conditioning and lighting; solar panels; low irrigation landscaping and roof gardens. The Earth Times reports in it’s article Green Roof Market Grows by Over 30% in 2007 that “the City of Chicago remains the number one city for green roofs with over half a million new square feet of green roofs installed in 2007, evidence of the city's commitment to becoming America's greenest city through green roof policies and incentives that support green roofs, walls and other forms of living architecture.”
But one of L.A.’s newest building projects is the “Mangrove” property on the edge of Little Tokyo. One of the proposed plans was detailed by ladowntownnews.com details “Unnamed project by First and Alameda Partners, LLC: A team led by Niemann Properties proposed creating 400 housing units (a mix of for-sale and rentals) in four buildings, with approximately 20% reserved for affordable housing. The buildings would include three six-story structures with housing above two levels of retail and one 10-story, purely residential edifice. The development would include a 15-story office tower at Temple and Alameda streets, a large open plaza fronting the Gold Line station, an entry plaza at Temple and Alameda, four levels of subterranean parking with 1,500 spaces, and other elements. The design by Downtown-based RSA would also include 40-foot setbacks to accommodate outdoor dining, as well as landscaped roofs and other green elements to meet LEED standards.” I personally hope this is the one they choose.
I read on Green roofs.com blog that The Green on the Sundance Channel hosted a contest called “What’s the Big Idea?” “Of all of the submissions, 25 semi-finalists were chosen the week of May 26, and now the videos/photo essays are open for voting from the general public to determine the five finalists; then the Grand Prize Winner will be selected by a panel of judges from the Sundance Channel’s GREEN Advisory Board. The winner will be announced on or about July 7, 2008. You can vote for your choice by June 24, 2008 by logging into their website. So I guess by now you have hopefully figured out that this blog is about…yes Green roofs. I’m not talking about green colored shingles I’m talking grass and plants. The geeks of doom website cites that “15% of all flat roofs in Germany are green roofs, which is enough to cover all of the roofs in New York City three times!” The best part is that you don’t have to live underground to go green! Celebrity Cruise lines has even added a green top deck to one of its new ships. Now if we can only get them to run on hydrogen…maybe that’s next who knows.
These roofs can range from untamed meadow grasses to aromatic plaza enjoyment areas. Roofscapes inc. has done some pretty amazing stuff. You should check out Chicago’s City Hall and the Life Expression Wellness Center in Sugarloaf, PA particularly. They are not only good and reducing the energy loss of cooling these buildings in the summer and heating them in the winter, they are beautiful to behold. Also according to plenty.com these roofing systems tend to last twice as long as conventional roofs because of the moisture absorption and protection from UV rays. In addition, neighborhoods benefit “…in rainy weather, because green roofs absorb rainwater then filter and release that moisture back into the air naturally, (taking) take strain off of rainwater runoff sewage systems, which can often be overburdened during big storms. That may not seem like a huge deal to you, but try sludging through dirty, flooded city streets after a big pour…” And of course we know how plants absorb dust and airborne pollutants making environments more healthy and pleasurable.
There are basically 2 designs for greenroofs. One is called an “extensive roof” which, according to ecoact.org “have layer of soil media that is relatively thin (2 to 6 inches of soil), and lightweight (10 to 50 lbs per square foot for the entire system when saturated with water). Because the weight of an extensive green roof is comparable to other roofing - river rock ballast weighs roughly 12 lbs per square foot, for example - an extensive green roof can cost as little as $8 per square foot. Standard extensive systems are most commonly used on slopes up to 30°, but steeper slopes (up to fully vertical green “walls”) can be accommodated with minor modifications to hold soil in place. Extensive green roofs are not suitable for food cultivation, but provide all of the stormwater, wildlife habitat, waste reduction, and energy conservation benefits described above. Lightweight, relatively easy-to-install, durable, and cost-effective green roof options are available for virtually any building type or location.” The other is called an “Intensive green roof (and are) are designed to accommodate trees and gardens. Soil can be as deep as is needed to accommodate the desired tree or plant species, but deeper, denser soil dramatically increases dead load, requiring a stronger and more expensive structure, greater maintenance, and either terracing or a relatively flat roof.” With either of these home owners reap all the benefits I have listed.
Unfortunately according to greenroofs.com, there have been some new barriers created by industries that compete with green roofs in the housing market. Kelly Luckett
wrote an article on the site that alarmed me. He attended a meeting of the ICC (international code council) which creates wind and fire guidelines. This is part of what he had to say…” As I sat and listened to nearly three hours of debate about the use of gravel ballast, I began to gain a better understanding for the high stakes chess match the International Building Code has become. One engineer approached the microphone and announced that he represented Portland cement and proceeded to give damning testimony regarding the use gravel ballast in hurricane zones. His testimony was followed by similar testimony given by a representative from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It then occurred to me what I was witnessing. Portland cement, manufacturer of concrete roof pavers, has a vested interest to see regulatory restrictions placed on the use of gravel roof ballast in favor of the use of concrete paver roof ballast. FEMA seeks to limit the windborne debris during high wind events that result in federally funded repairs to neighboring property. SPRI is on the hot seat then to continually defend the RP-4 wind design guideline. This battle has been ongoing since 2003 with no end in sight.”
Please write to your local representatives and alert them to this conflict of interest so that a good thing won’t go to the way side to pave some business interests pocket! Has FEMA done research comparing the windborne debris of green roofing and the damage it creates as compared to slate and concrete tile roofs? I don’t know but I would think that heavy things like that would cause more damage being thrown thru the air in a hurricane than plant material and drainage gravel. If any of you have statistics send on this send them to me.

Plastic Toxins

Let’s talk about plastic. When you drinking from a water bottle or eating something to go that happens to be in plastic, do you ever think about what might be leaching into your water/food? Of course not! Who does? You might have heard the recent news about some types of plastic being able to leach toxins out of containers into your food or whatever you happen to be drinking or eating? I hadn’t heard about it until it became the topic of conversation at a recent job interview I was at. I did a little research and the data seems very compelling . Ever wonder what those little codes on the bottom of plastic containers are for? I thought they were just for the recyclers to sort out all the different types of plastics at plant manufactures. It turns out these numbers are useful for us too. Plastics with the numbers 7, 3 and 6 are capable of leaching toxins if they are exposed to heat. Yes that’s right…that bottle of water that’s been sitting in the hot car all day could be toxic, even microwaves can cause this. Look at the bottom of food containers for the little recycling symbol and check out the number that’s inside it. If you brought your leftovers home from a restaurant and they are packaged in plastic be sure to look at the bottom of the container before you pop it into the microwave. What about all those plastic plates and utensils we’ve been using? Sure they were cheap, no clean up and not breakable but I don’t know about you but knowing all this information about plastic has now made me paranoid eating off of them anymore. I mean, I thought Nalgene bottles were supposed to be safe and they aren’t. Although the company says they are going to switch to a different kind of plastic. So throw those old ones away…fill up our land fills with more Plastic. It is not only harmful to us but it is also unhealthy for our environment "Plastic takes up to 400 years to break down in landfills" an article from Randy Larson "Find Resources Less Harmful To The Environment." This is an even better reason for not using or buying plastic. What about glass? It is much more likely to be recycled into other products than plastic and you don’t have to worry about leaching. I know it’s dangerous to have a glass bottle of water rolling around in your car floor… It could break. For those times there are other alternatives to plastic too…shatter resistant glass, or corn based materials. Here’s the 411 on these toxic plastics you need to avoid according to
http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-friendly/plastic-bottles-toxins-water bottles-460410

Greywater Matters

Ok, so last time I shifted from eco friendly transportation to green living at home by talking about geo-thermal heating. I’d like to continue in that direction but talk about water. I heard once that water would be the new oil. That there would be wars over water rights just like there are wars over controlling oil interests now. I’ve been reading a book called The Parable of the Sower that goes down that path. Let’s hope their wrong. But water conservation is a big topic so I’m just going to talk right now about what we can do at home. I’m sure that all of us that are concerned about the environment already do things like, not letting the water run down the sink when your brushing your teeth or taking unnecessarily long showers or running the dishwasher or washing machine when it’s only half full. We may have even installed low flush toilets or other devices that regulate the flow of water. But did you know that you can actually recycle water in your home? I’m not talking about the so called “black water” that goes down the toilet. (although there are very complicated and expensive systems that do that too) I’m talking about a water recycling system that uses so called “grey water” or water that runs down the sink when you wash your fruits and veggies or rinsing off your tooth brush and even the water that has been used to wash the dishes in the dishwasher and the water that goes down the drain after a bath or shower. This can all be run thru a system and reused to irrigate your lawn and planter beds. There are several benefits to this, not only do you save water but when you “reuse the soaps, skin particles, shampoo, and hair conditioner as plant fertilizer, (you are) keeping them out of the waterways. Phosphate rich soaps and mild cleaning chemicals in your wastewater are considered pollutants because they accelerate algae growth in the waterways, which in turn leads to oxygen depletion for fish and other marine life” (1) but just by using biodegradable detergents and soaps you are actually making your plants healthier so they can take in more carbon dioxide from the air and release more oxygen into the air. I found a kit online at: http://www.thenaturalhome.com/greywater.html for $695 it gives detailed instructions for retrofitting your existing system. Although it seems pretty complicated to me someone that’s handy like my dad probably wouldn’t have much of a problem setting it up. Of course you can do the same thing in a more limited way just by saving your old plastic water bottles and filling them up with the used bath water once you’re finished before you send it down the drain. Take a nail and punch 4 tiny holes in the top around the neck of the bottle and place them in your potted plants. As the soil dries out the water will leak out of the bottle. If the soil is moist enough already the water won’t leak out. It’s also a good way to keep from over watering your potted plants and keeps you from spending money on fertilizer which isn’t good for the planet anyway. If you don’t drink out of plastic anymore because you’re scared of leaching like I am you can also use glass bottled water with a screw on aluminum cap. I just punch a couple holes in the lid with my nail and it works the same way. Old laundry detergent bottles with the pour spout make great watering cans too. If you have any other tips I’d be happy to learn them! Thanks.

Geothermal Energy

When I visited the Roman baths I was amazed at how forward thinking they were. I remember learning in Science how the Earth's core is very very hot. So if that's true why don't we use it to heat our buildings and spas the way the Romans did?
I'm talking about Geo-thermal energy. Countries like Iceland use up to date technologies to make the most of this usually untapped resource. All of Iceland's space and water heating comes from geothermal sources saving an estimated $100 million a year over what it would have cost to use fossil fuels. (according to REUK.co.uk) Iceland also uses geothermal heat to keep their streets and parking free of ice and snow. I wonder how many lives that saves in traffic accidents? They also have plans to split hydrogen from water to create fuel cells to power their vehicles and boats.
That's what Iceland's doing but here at home we have heat pumps that individuals can buy to not only heat their homes but to cool it as well. I've read that it can save homeowners 30 - 70% in heating costs and 20 - 50% in cooling costs when compared to a conventional system. (according to the geothermal Heat Pump Consortium Inc. 4/27/08) It is also great for the environment because it's a virtually endless supply of energy on a continuous basis as opposed to wind and solar which can fluctuate.
Of course certain regions have higher reservoir temperatures which makes utilizing this resource more appealing, but with new designs virtually any home in the U.S. could tap into this source. States with the best potential for high volumes of use of this technology include Nevada, part of Utah, Idaho, California, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico have reservoir temperatures of over 212 degrees F. But most of the Western states have lower temperatures that are still high enough to produce an abundance of power. (according to the U.S. Department of Energy)
Just think about all the energy savings that could be make if everyone in these areas changed their heating & cooling systems for their homes and businesses. In addition they could heat their pools, provide hot tap water and enjoy radiant heated floors to warm their toes in the winter. Home owners here could enjoy ice free driveways like Icelanders enjoy their ice and snow free streets and parking areas.
There was a tax credit available for homes converting to geothermal which expired last year but an extension for the tax credit is pending. (information from waterfurnace.com) I can't think of any reason this tax credit shouldn't exist long enough for everyone to take advantage of this energy and planet saving technology.
The initial cost of installing one of these systems is more expensive than a conventional system by 50 - 100% because of the added labor of drilling but with the savings I described earlier you could recoup somewhere between $358 - $1,475 per year. According to the California Energy Commission you can expect to see a return on your investment financially between 2 and 10 years. But there could be additional savings in repairs not being factored in as well because these systems have fewer mechanical components that could break down than conventional units. Then of course you have a clean conscience as well knowing that you have done one more thing to reduce your own carbon foot print on the planet.

Kyoto Protocol

Since the start "of the industrial revolution concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30 percent, methane has... more than doubled." (2) This shocked world meteorologists so much that they helped put toghether the group that created the Kyoto Protocol. Countries that sign this promise to lower greenhouse gases that they emit over a certain period of time. 172 countries have signed this plan to stop global warming, except for the U.S and Australia. The U.S. and Australia think it is unfair that countries like India, China, and Brazil do not have to cut down their emissions by as much because they are poorer countries. A Dutch research group that keeps track of countries pollution announced that china is now ahead of the U.S. as a number one carbon dioxide emitter. The air quality in Beijing is so bad that people wear masks to keep from breathing the soot in the air. China uses coal as their main energy source because they have alot of it. this is 42 percent higher than the world's average because China has less money to put into cleaner fuel sources that richer countries use. Bad air quality is just one of the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions. Did you know that besides making our summer's hotter and melting the glaciers, which are causing sea levels to rise, global warming is causing droughts in some areas? It's also causing stronger and more hurricanes than we have in the past. Greenhouse gases are also reducing the ozone layer causing more skin cancer in some places. Other health problems such as Malaria have been predicted to increase due to the lowering of ocean ph because the water is getting warmer. So with almost all the scientists agreeing on this why aren't we doing anything? It always comes down to money and who's expected to pay. It's expensive to make changes that reduce our needs for non renewable energy sources. China may be number one now in total emissions, but if you count that they have four times as many people as the U.S. China puts out "10,500 lbs of carbon dioxide per person while in the U.S. it is nearly 42,500 lbs. per person." (3) Also, if you consider that the U.S. has been an industrialized country for alot longer than China, the biggest portion of the pollution in the atmosphere is ours. Some of the factories in China that are responsible for their increased pollution are American companies that are using China's cheap labor. What needs to be done in my opinion is we first have to stop worrying about who's the biggest polluter and fix the problem, by doing what's right no matter the cost.



Refences: 2. www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/climate_change.shtml

3. www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-06-20-124188869_x.htm

4. http://www.mongabay.com/

5. www.celsias.com/2007/06/27/chinas-boost-in-co2-emi

6. www.greenpeace.org/international/news/china-climate-change

7. www.investmentu.com/research/coalstocks.html

8. www.environment.sa.gov.au/reporting/atmosphere/ozone/stratospheric.html

Greenhouse gases

I have been talking alot about cars in my previous blogs but there are lots of things that contribute to Global warming but the main reasons are greenhouse gases, like CO2 are hurting us and our enviornment. These gases have caused the earth's surface temperature to rise by one degree fahrenheit in the past century. Most of the temperature change has increased during the past 2 decades. Some of these gases, like water vapor, are a normal part of how our enviornment worksbut we have added more of these gases to the air because of some of the things we do. When people replace natural wetlands with paddy rice farming they cause plants to move "methane loving bacteria"(1) from the mud where they live through the plants "vascular Systems".(1) That puts methane into the atmosphere, because it keeps the migroorganisms that would have eaten the methane, away from it. Livestock whose stomachs are also homes for these bacteria break down the cow's food causing the cows to fart methane. Cows are responsible for "100 million tonas of methane each year."(1) Methane "traps 25 times as much of the suns heat....as carbon dioxide." (1) Landfills and vented septic tanks also release methane gas but can be trapped and used as fuel. Farmer's use of fertilizers also leads to higher nitrous oxide levels (another greenhouse gas).
www.newscientist.com.article.ns?id=mg12216635.100&print=true

A break on the enviornment but more on price gouging

So everyone feels they are getting gouged at the pumps. I'm not driving yet but even someone my age can get ripped off. Take for example my adorable rescue puppy. I love her to death but I'm no dog wisperer. So I went to Santa Monica Kennels and paid them $3000 to train her. Well, actually my mom did. Anyway, my mom explained to them that all she really cared about was that she was house broken and that she come when we called her name. Well, 3/4 way thru training we said how we couldn't see any signs of improvement because she was still having accidents and would look at us like we were crazy when we tried to get her to come to us. First he said well, we are having trouble with her shredding the pee pee pads. I said funny she never does that at home she just ignores them. Then the girl at the desk says he doesn't know what he's saying she doesn't tear them up. So I'm thinking...does he know which dog is mine? He said not to worry she will be great by the end of training. So graduation day arrived and it was raining so he told us she wouldn't follow the commands in the rain so he'd try to teach us the commands inside. Well, it was too crowed and this excuse and that why she wasn't really following directions and sent us on our way. We were leaving town the following morning. Well as soon as we got home she had an accident. We called but no answer so we left a message. When we returned from out of town we tried again finally my mom just went up there to complain that we felt ripped off because she still peed in the house. He said Oh, did you take her out 5 times a day like the sheet I gave you told you to do. I said no because you told me you could train her on the pads so I wouldn't have to take her out for a walk 5 times a day. Oh, I gave you the sheet on house breaking. Here let me give you the one on pee pee pad training. Didn't you train her to go on them because that's what I asked you to do? oh yes but we don't guarantee potty training. Then my mom said well she won't come when I call her name. The owner says Oh, she won't come to you when you have her on a leash. What do you mean my mother says of course I can get her to come to me when she's on a leash all I have to do is pull her to me. He then says Oh, you paid for leash training. It's more $ if you wanted her to be trained off leash. My mom says I though leash training was so she would walk on a leash without pulling and straining. Which is why I told you I didn't really care about that as much as I wanted her to come to me when I called her. Again he says so she won't come to you when you call her on a leash. So my mom says no she comes when I pull her to me. Oh, well let me tell you how you should train her to come to you when you call her. You get a really really long leash and.... My mom just left. She went home and looked at the contract that did indeed say they wouldn't guarantee house breaking but it did say that they would command train your dog again if it didn't work. Which he never offered to do. He only wanted to tell me how to do it. Why would I listen to him when he had her for 6 weeks and didn't teach her anything.

Options for people on limited budjets

Some of you have asked me to consider the position of people who can't afford to buy more fuel
efficient cars and are being hurt by the current high cost of gas. For those who have diesil cars,
their gas guzzlers can be converted to run on bio diesil. I saw a kit online that cost $575 it's a bit
expensive initially but if they are getting their vegitable oil free from restaurants who would
normally have to pay someone to dispose of it other wise the savings could rack up pretty fast. But if this initial cost is not feasible it can't be that complicated of a conversion because my friend converted his moms mercede's to run on bio diesil for our 5th grade science project. Solutions such as this and competition from waste based ethanol production will hopefully drive big oil out of business.

Another potential Source

How about using other wastes for fuel like garbage? "Our waste disposal crisis, combined with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 states that production of ethanol must reach 36 billion gallons per year by 2022, of which 20 billion gallons is to be produced from sources other than corn. Cellulosic material in municipal solid waste, green waste, and other biomass represents a virtually endless source of feedstock which can produce fermentable sugars for the production of ethanol at almost no cost, and in some locations a profit.. Municipal biorefineries have the potential to: Reduce the costs of transporting waste long distances for disposal. Dramatically reduce pollution released into the environment by the disposal of municipal solid waste. Reduce the amount of material going into landfills by as much as eighty five percent. Increase the amount of recyclable materials that can be recovered from municipal solid waste. Generate biofuels and other usable energy products at competitive prices." CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. Ed Hennessey stated. Another potential source is Horatio algae Solix Biofuels is working with Colorado state university and has established an algae farm near a brewing company to use the CO2 that's emitted during the fermination process to facilitate the algee's growth. The best thing about this is that if " Just 5-10% of America's crop land (were) converted to algae production, (it) could supply liquid fuel needs to the entire U.S." according to Alastair Bland, a freelance writer who covers "green living".

Cow Power!

In my last blog entry before this one I wasn't saying we should eliminate Ethanol completly from the picture, I just think there are other ways of creating fuel that are less harmful to our enviornment and could possibly be cheaper. We can't just have one fuel source for the entire to run on. We need multiple sources of energy and there are plenty out there most of us just havent thought of them, like cows for instance. They contribute to the release of methane a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon. The smelly farms these cows live on that you pass by when your going through the country are an untapped source of fuel. Well it's actually not completly untapped, dairy farmers in Vermont are running on "Cow Power" and "In Longmont, Co Heartland Renewable energy plans to have a plant fed by the power of 50,000 cows online within 6mo." Said Alastair Bland from his article Boom Heat Magic.

"In the middle of every difficulty lies an opportunity."- Albert Einstein

So in my previous 2 blog entries I discussed the benefits of higher gas prices on our quest to curb CO2 emissions. Another thing this has done is to make production of bio fuels and ethanol more cost productive. But the last of these two potentially beneficial gas alternatives has created some other problems in the process…a virtual food shortage. "The impact of rising food prices on food aid is part of a broader debate about the long-term impact on the world's poorest people of using food crops to make ethanol and other bio fuels, a strategy that rich countries like the United Sates hope will eventually reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil." Noel Sheppard whose the associated editor of News Busters said. While Bush is blaming India’s increased population & wealth for using more grain to feed livestock which is causing the rise in grain prices, India in turn blames Bush’s energy bill which gives government subsidies to companies producing ethanol from those same food sources. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and includes several countries with high grain yields cutting back on their exports which also contributes to our current food shortage. But we should take partial blame to the problem instead of pointing fingers. We should eliminate government subsidies of ethanol made from food sources. Subsidies should be limited to ethanol production from agricultural waste. This is slowly taking hold with newly built facilities like the one in Georgia constructed by Range Fuels. This ethanol plant uses only bio mass which is made from a variety of wastes including olive pits, logging waste switchblade grass and agricultural waste not suited for consumption. It’s projected to produce up to 100 million gallons of ethanol from these by products yielding what founder and former apple executive Vinod Khosta terms “waste to value”. Subsidies for oil companies need to be eliminated and there for truly curtailing our dependence on oil. Isn’t it funny, if these technologies really take off, how Bush’s pursuit to protect oil interests for the U.S. by invading Iraq have in effect raised oil prices by weakening the country and would have ultimately insured the end of the industry it set out to secure. Just shows what goes around comes around.

Steven D. Levit who wrote the article “Hurray For High Gas Prices!” said that “Because I don’t pay the full costs of my driving, I drive too much.” which makes sense because if your getting cheaper gas than everyone else in the world why not take advantage of this? The bad thing about this is people have become accustomed to driving all the time and now that the prices are going up due increased consumption of oil we are not use to having to pay full price for our gas like everyone else in the world , so we are fighting for our prices to stay low when we should be trying to find alternative sources of fuel that are cheaper and better for the environment. And if you look at all the cities in Europe who do have high gas prices, they have come up with more energy efficient ways of getting around. Like the subway, and the use of alternative fuels like hydrogen, and electric and are working on other fuels as well. This is a good example of what we should be doing in America. We should be putting our money into investing in infrastructure to build subways and other mass transit alternatives, instead of funding wars to secure oil interests. “According to a recent study by a research firm that tracks cost of living data, the U.S. gas prices are the 45th cheapest out of 155 countries surveyed.” Reporter Heather Biance said in may, 4 2008

High Gas Prices, Good For The Environment?

Everyone is talking about the high price of gas. Senator Clinton has even purposed suspending
the gas tax to give consumers a break over the summer when consumption's are at it's peak."With oil nearing $100 barrel and gas prices over $3 per gallon, Americans are feeling the pain of seven years of a failed Bush-Cheney energy policy." Have you also noticed Americans are finally turning to smaller more fuel efficient cars like the European's, who have been driving them since 1994. American tourists are no longer makin fun of European Smart cars and are even lining up to buy them here in the U.S. Our gas prices have always paled in comparison to the costly price of fuel in Europe. Wouldn't you like to see all of our public transportationbeing utalized? So maybe these gas prices are not too high for the price of polluting the enviornment.