Earth Hour 2008, it’s a start

As the sun set around the planet last night, so too did a symbolic ‘setting sun’ take place for one hour to signify our understanding of what life would be like if we did not have electricity to light our homes and commercial districts.

For the second year, civilization, beginning in Auckland, New Zealand and Sydney, Australia and continuing across the Asian continent and through Europe and Africa lit candles instead of light bulbs in a show of solidarity with the Earth.

North and South America dimmed the lights from Nova Scotia to Times Square to Las Vegas to the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco.

Earth Hour 2008, promoted by the World Wildlife Fund and the Sydney Morning Herald, was embraced by people across all walks of life and political boundaries. The demonstration is an attempt to bring about a greater awareness of our dependence on electricity, which the production of contributes to carbon emissions, and is estimated to have reduced electricity consumption in Sydney by between 2% and 10% for that hour.

Estimates of carbon dioxide reduction vary greatly. In 2007, the Bangkok Post claimed 102 tons were saved, the WWF put the figure at 41.6 tons. Toronto Canada claims it saved close to 500 tons. Separate studies show the savings was much less. No matter what figures you subscribe to, anytime we can reduce electricity dependence we are reducing carbon output.

Some critics say the timing of the event, so close to sunset, negates its advantages and that photographs and figures are manipulated to embellish the effectiveness of the event.

It is estimated that the entire world emits around 27 billion tons of CO2 each year, through transportation, electricity use, deforestation. Americans have the biggest annual carbon footprint at 20 tons, each. That works out to about 6 billion tons from the U.S. alone based on population statistics as of July 2007. Critics say that turning off electrical appliances for one hour is not going to have much effect on our overall damage.

Critics be damned. The event took place and will take place again next year. This represents action instead of talk. We were only asked to give one hour. If the critics would rather find fault in every attempt to reverse our detrimental effects on this planet then they are going to do it no matter what. This is something that needs to be supported. We need to show our unity towards a commitment to finding a solution to climate change.

This years event was a greater success than last years and I am sure next years event will bring more participation. And along the way other events will take place that will lead to yet others, and so on. Collectively, every event adds to a positive momentum to reduce our dependence and increase our awareness of the problem. We can make a difference, and we will, with or without the naysayers.

The first step in finding a solution has been taken, and that is admitting there is a problem, i.e. global warming does exist. Now politicians, always a few steps behind, need to be convinced. The next step is doing something effective. We enjoy showing off our ‘greenness’ by changing our light bulbs or shunning plastic water bottles and shopping bags or turning our lights off for one hour, but these actions alone are not going to reverse the mess we have created. We need to convince politicians and corporate leaders that issues such as the search for alternative energy, development of sustainable living practices, and climate change are the most pressing issues for our future.

Earth Hour is just a start but I am still asking Are We Green Yet?

Sources:

WWF Earth Hour

Toronto’s the Star.com

Time magazine

CNN Planet in Peril

Educating for a greener future

Several universities are beginning to offer degrees in renewable energy. The rising challenges of global warming and the search for alternative energy schemes have long necessitated the need for more diverse technological and design skills.

The Oregon Institute of Technology has developed the country’s first four-year undergraduate degree program in renewable-energy systems. This year the program is training 50 students and will graduate its first class.

Illinois State University will start offering a bachelor's degree program focused on renewable energy. The school's Department of Technology will run the multi-disciplinary program that will also include major components in economics and public policy. Students in the program can also choose to concentrate in wind or ethanol.

The New York State Education Department and the State University of New York (SUNY) approved a four-year Renewable and Alternative Energy Applications program that started in the Fall 2006 semester at SUNY Canton.

Arizona State University began offering students undergraduate and graduate degree programs focusing on Alternative Energy Technologies in the fall of 2007.

Many other smaller colleges are offering similar course study.

Most core programs are centered around engineering, computer languages, public policy, etc and additionally require further specialization in photovoltaic, wind, biomass hydropower and geothermal energy development.

Our green future is beginning to look brighter.

When I attended college in the early 80’s Environmental studies was one offering from the geology department. We have come a long way and its good to see the increased interest.

Personal vehicle redefined

Several new versions of the personal vehicle have been making waves lately in our quest for better fuel economy without looking geeky. Depending on your definition of ‘geeky’ these vehicles may or may not be for you. But they do offer fuel economy. As you can see they are to be considered either upgraded motorcycles or downsized cars.

The French built Lumeneo Smera is a fully electric, four-wheeled ‘capsule’ that can easily maintain 80 mph (130 kph) for a distance of up to 93 miles (150 km) between charges. An onboard computer controls what’s called a tilting function so that the vehicle will safely ‘lean’ up to 25 degrees into a turn.

The 770 pound vehicle has an overall length of just under 8 feet and is 2.6 feet wide, easily able to squeeze into any available parking space. The Smera is rear-wheel driven powered by two 20hp electric motors. The lithium ion battery pack can be charged by any standard electrical outlet.

Leather upholstery makes for a comfortable ride. Like most motorcycles, you can carry a passenger but there is no room for anything else.

Lumeneo is keeping a tight lid on the price.

The Naro has been around since 2004 when the Narrow Car Company was licensed by Prodrive to develop the project. What made this concept unique to motorcycle type vehicles is its height. The higher center of gravity requires the vehicle to lean into turns to prevent toppling over. Unlike a motorcycle, the Naro has four wheels and the occupants, one driver and one passenger, are enclosed and therefore protected from the weather.

At less than one third the weight of a typical European sedan it requires just 25 percent of the power to drive it. The Naro is powered by a 400cc, single cylinder 4-vlave engine the produces 20hp. Current mileage it is rated at 100mpg. it isn’t one of the sexy hybrid darlings of the automotive world but it will help stretch your gas
dollar.

Venture Vehicles has announced a two-passenger plug-in hybrid that gets 100mpg with a top speed of over 100 mph. This three-wheeled vehicle is still a concept using the working name VentureOne. Tilting is once again a key factor in this design and the patented Dynamic Vehicle Control tilting technology from Dutch-based Carver Engineering allows the vehicle to tilt through turns while keeping all three wheels firmly on the ground.

A zero-emission all-electric version is also being developed that will have a range of nearly 200 miles.

Pricing is around $23,000 US for the all-electric and the hybrid will sell for around $20,000.

If you are a motorcycle enthusiast you may miss the wind on your face, and the bugs in your teeth, enjoyment that only a true motorbike can offer, but there is something to be said for the mix of style and comfort these models provide.

Typical politician kowtowing

Now this is just too easy. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both talking up coal in a coal producing state. Who knew?

While campaigning in West Virginia this week, they both said they were in favor of "the cleanest coal possible." Gee, is there such a thing as “clean coal”? Since there isn’t then I guess it is safe for them both to say they are for the cleanest coal possible and still feel very middle of the road.

Besides the act of burning coal pouring tons of pollution into the air we breathe and ultimately our lungs for years to come, the most common practice of ripping coal out of the once pristine wilderness of West Virginia, referred to as strip-mining and mountain top removal, the countryside pays just as high a price.

Is this scar clean?

How about this one? Is this one the cleanest possible?

Obama made the statement that he wishes to create "up to 5 million new green jobs ... including new clean coal jobs." I personally didn’t realize that clean jobs and coal jobs could co-exist. So this one is new to me.

These guys don’t seem to want to push the idea of giving up on coal and getting into some other cleaner, more environmentally friendly form of energy production.

Hey guys, just because your predecessors ripped the earth apart for coal and suffered from black-lung disease doesn’t mean you have to.

Why haven’t they gotten the message yet, that Americas citizens are tired of breathing that old symbol of industrialism?

Kansas strikes down another pollution producer

Is this state legislature for real? With all the proof of global warming landing like a brick wall squarely on their heads, the Kansas legislature has the temerity to introduce a bill that would not only allow the spewing of 11 million more tons of greenhouse gas into our atmosphere, they also had written in the bill excusing energy producers from adhering to the state’s stricter-than-the-EPA-standards of pollution.

Sunflower Electric power Corp tried twice in the last year to obtain approval to add two 700 –megawatt units at a facility in western Kansas. I can’t believe anyone is still pursuing this outdated filthy form of power generation. It is morally irresponsible to actually want to add pollution to our atmosphere. Sunflower president Earl Watkins had the nerve to threaten Kansas families with higher electric rates saying that if the bill did not pass it would “punish our Kansas workers and industries”.

Just who does this guy think he is fooling? Pollution to our bodies and our planet is a far greater threat than the increase in home and business utility rates that we have come to expect almost annually anyway.

"Of all the duties and responsibilities entrusted to me as governor, none is greater than my obligation to protect the health and well-being of the people of Kansas," Governor Sebelius said in her veto message.

Thank-you governor for showing some common sense against outdated dirty energy producing power plants and legislators who cannot see past the dollar signs being waved in front of them.

Sources: Kansas City Star, Reuters, Associated Press