You may have seen something on the news about Spokane, Washington where there is now a ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates. While this may seem to be an isolated case, there are actually several states (including the rest of the state of Washington) that will make dishwashing soap made with phosphates above a very small level illegal in 2010.

What is phosphate anyway and why is it used in dish washing soap?  Phosphate is an inorganic chemical that is a combination of salt and phosphoric acid.  Because it can clean things like hard water stains, and grease, phosphates are used in all kinds of things including dish washing soap. 

Why all the fuss?  Phosphate is a problem when it finds its way to freshwater rivers and lakes.  The phosphate encouraged the growth of algae which depletes the oxygen in these rivers and lakes, killing off fish and other wildlife. 

While there are green alternatives out there, deleting the phosphates from the dish washing soap can leave one unsatisfied with the resulting product-and a lot of dirty dishes.  Plus some of these green alternatives are pricier than their cheaper phosphorous counterparts.  This has caused people to travel outside their state to obtain contraband detergent from other states-which, of course, defeats the purpose of the bank in the first place. 

What should you look for in a green dish washing soap?  Are there green products that work as well?  While there is no direct substitute for phosphorous, but there are other substances that can be used.  How well they will work depends on a number of factors, perhaps the most important being the hardness of the water used for cleaning.

One ingredient that be used is a surfactants.  Surfactants are usually biodegradable and are used to provide cleaning power and increase the ability of the water to separate the soil from the dish. Anionic surfactants work well as detergents, but can be less than effective in hard water. Amphoteric surfactants are used for their foaming power and can often be found with anionic surfactants. There are other substitutes for phosphates, but these can be even more dangerous than the phosphates. They include nitrilotriacatic acid (NTA) and caustic alkaline chemicals (which are particularly dangerous when ingested-as sometimes happens with children).

It may take some trial and error to come up with the phosphate substitute that works best in your water.  It is unlikely that the ban on phosphates is going away, so it is better to start exploring the options now.  In the meantime, the soap manufacturers continue work on the perfect phosphate substitute, but there are some excellent alternatives out there.

If you have a computer, imagine how you could make a difference!

How you say?

That is all I do, show others how to promote Earth day with a Professional Events Marketer that is sharing their knowledge specifically to get an important message out. Just imagine sending one note, or just telling a friend or colleague your business Supports Earth day!

It is not just about prestige it is about you creating value in your network. When you are seen to have a heart, this is attractive to people in all lifestyles. This can make your businesses look very good. Its attractive seeing a business you are involved with supporting a worthy cause!

Let me explain.

We have created Groups that are Non-profit just for helping with education, one is called Recycling Renegades, 10×10 at Face book and we have used many services that many do not know are there but used them strategically to spread the message about Earth Day. We are just getting the word out that Earth Day can Help Corporate create a better image.

To make it worthwhile for a businessperson to get involved, we have managed to get a great set of training on Social Traffic Media to get them interested in helping us with Earth Day.

Just look at the Fun we are having, but I have to say, it is a very serious message. Its not taken lightly as its global warming, pollution, rain forests rebuilding, forestry’s, clean ups on oil slicks and more. We have demonstrated our dedication with the work going into promoting Earth day and all the people fulling you tube channels and other Medias, just to get the word out about earth day, we are taking this serious.

Warning, it is not pretty! What is happening to this earth has been hidden and covered up, please if you have a weak stomach do not look and investigate.

Now look at all the Professionals that want to be part of this big picture and give a little time to learn better skills and Promote our Earth.

If over 2000 People see the Value, will you? Many together can make a loud voice for earth day do you not think it would be exceptional for your business to be involved in such a momentous occasion.

Get with it or be left behind, it is a simple decision!

I few weeks ago I came across an article about the deforestation situation of all the tropical rainforests. It talked about the main causes this beautiful places, origin to thousands of different life forms, are being damaged by people in so many different ways, among others: subsistence agriculture, colonization, tourism, and civilization development (savetherainforest). This latter caught my attention the most, because last week I went to my teak farm, and I got to see with my own eyes how a highway development affects our rainforest and trees so badly.

My teak farm is located about 1 hour drive from Panama City, it is located in the Colon province, home of Colon City (second biggest city in our country, Panama). Last year the government decided to build a long overdue highway connecting both cities (of course I am all for improving the quality of life of my countrymen) but I can not agree with the amount of deforestation that took place in order to build this highway.

Hundred of acres deforested in order to make way for four lanes that will bring better days to a lot of people, no doubt; but also brought a lot of disorder and chaos to a well established eco system that has being here long before us, and will continue to be here for (hopefully) thousands or millions of years after every single one of us has left this world.

Since development of cities is inevitable, specially today where commerce since to grow exponentially, cities expand rapidly, and the whole world seems to be at everybody s fingertips, we need better way of transport and communication, but could we also be more interested in both preserving and saving tropical rainforests and trees? The answer is a big OF COURSE! I would have loved to see our government promoting the planting of trees in different areas of our country in order to make up for the ones lost during the development of this highway, or during the construction of so many other infrastructures around the country. Also having more people come forward and speak up as energetic and belligerent they are about so many other problems we have on this planet. Maybe all we need are more ways to let people know about this, get them involved.

Since so much rainforest is lost every year, roughly about twice the size of the state of FLORIDA, this has become a problem for every single one of us earthlings, I think we need to get the word out, raise awareness and get people involved! Tropical Rainforest account for only 2% of land surface but through photosynthesis of trees they take massive amounts of CO2 emissions and make air clean and breathable again for every one of us. SO WE ALL NEED OUR RAINFOREST AND MORE TREES!!

Lots of people talk about trying to live a greener life, with some even going so far as to completely change their lifestyle, but most people aren’t sure how to go green because they don’t know exactly what that means. Sure, most people know the basics that scratch the surface such as reusing, recycling and reducing the amount of waste output for their homes but there many other steps you can take to move towards a cleaner, greener environment.

If you’re wondering how you can make your life greener, here are five different tips that are simple and easy to implement and that don’t cost the you anything.  All it takes is a little dedication and after a few months, these five little things will become second-nature to you.

1. The next time you go shopping use cloth bags at the grocery store instead of paper or plastic.  These cloth bags can be purchased for as little as a few dollars each and they’re much stronger than paper or plastic bags and will last you through years of use. 

These bags help reduce waste since most people throw away the plastic and paper bags.  The hardest part of using cloth bags is remembering to take them to the store, but once you get in the habit of using them, it becomes unconscious habit.

2. Replace your standard light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs.  These bulbs use less energy and last for four to five years, almost 15 times longer than traditional bulbs.  While the cost of a compact fluorescent bulb is more than your standard bulb, they easily pay for themselves over time requiring less frequent replacement and reduced energy consumption.  In fact, studies show that a CF bulb can actually pay for itself within one to two months.  One CF bulb also saves about five pounds of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide a month.  Replacing every bulb in your home can have a huge impact on the environment and on your wallet.

3. Use public transportation.  By car pooling, taking the bus, or using the subway you can cut down on the amount of gas you use and the amount of exhaust your car emits.  While it may be an inconvenience in some ways, it is one of the best ways of helping the environment.  Even better, walk or ride your bike to work if possible.  This not only saves you money and helps the environment but it also keeps you fit and healthy!

4. Adjust your thermostat by a few degrees.  By turning your thermostat down by just two degrees in the winter, you can save over 50 pounds of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide per month while lowering your heating bill.  Turning it up a few degrees in the summer can likewise save you money and save the environment. 

5. Finally, only wash your clothes or run your dish washer when you have a full load.  It wastes water and electricity to wash and dry only a few pieces of clothing.  In fact, if you can, try to wash your clothes using the cold water cycle as it uses up to 50% less energy than a warm water one. 

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:

1. You input kilograms for food:
   • 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds = 35.2 ounces
   • 1 ounce = 0.028 kilograms. 1 pound = 0.454545 kilograms
2. Your water footprint is in cubic meters per year:
   • 1 cubic meter = 35.3 cubic feet = 266 gallons
3. 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)

I showed you mine. Now you show me yours:

Get the naked truth: Calculate your waterfootprint now:

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

Concerns about dangerous climate change and large biodiversity loss are visible throughout the world: unprecedented rates of temperature increases and species extinctions are a reality. In 1999 Dr. Peter Raven, president of the International Botanical Congress, published a paper in which he states that “current extinction rate is now approaching 1,000 times the background rate and may climb to 10,000 times the background rate during the next century, if present trends continue. At this rate, one-third to two-thirds of all species of plants, animals, and other organisms would be lost during the second half of the 21st century, a loss that would easily equal those of past extinctions”. He then outlined seven “Points to Slow the Extinction of Plants”, including financial and capacity building instruments to help developing countries protect 80% of the world’s biodiversity they host. As far as climate change is concerned, the responsibility of developed countries is high in providing the most threatened regions in the world with good instruments to cope with this challenge (or at least examples of them to implement autonomously).

Climate change plays a significant role in this human-induced mass extinction because it is increasing the already large biodiversity losses caused by habitat destruction and fragmentation, water and air pollution, introduction of invasive species. Marine ecosystems will be affected by an increase in sea temperature, but also by ocean acidification, because of the higher concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide (carbonic acid): in fact this reduces the shell formation ability in many organisms. Polar (and mountain) ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change, with effects such as thawing permafrost, decreased snow cover, losses from ice sheets and changes in ocean temperatures. Large impacts on Arctic biodiversity are already evident, pictures of polar bears wandering lost on small icebergs being a scary and sad symbol of the era we live in (even former U.S. President Bush, at the end of his mandate, recalled this image to show his fellow citizens he cared about climate change …)

In this rapidly changing environment it is therefore extremely important that conservation plans include adaption measures for ecosystems accordingly to the predicted regional climate patterns (but models need still to be improved a lot at this scale): dynamic approaches are needed to set good options for future ecosystems and landscapes. It will be necessary to facilitate the movement of species to new geographical locations, as they follow the shifting habitats.

The public concern is growing: in Africa last 28 February young people organized a march from impoverished urban areas to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro to raise awareness on climate change, together with the Kilimanjaro Initiative and the UN’s global UNite to Combat Climate Change campaign. It seems though that the global attention on climate change doesn’t fully consider implications for biodiversity yet: while the negotiations and speeches on climate issues are very popular (and the Nobel Prize was awarded to the entire IPCC together with Al Gore in 2007) the meetings and decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (http://www.cbd.int/) don’t raise comparable interest. Is it because the anthropocentrism is (still) the prevailing philosophy and animals and plants are mainly seen by people as beautiful “supporting actors” on the planet we live on? Right when we are losing control of the global situation it is probably time to reflect on our role of dominant species and acknowledge the fundamental contribution of other organisms to our livelihoods, despite many of us live in the so called Technosphere.

Policies to protect the climate avoiding irreversible effects on the ecosystems need to be strongly interconnected with conservation strategies: preserving natural areas while helping them adapt to the changing climate means hopefully to leave better, or not as compromised, ecosystems to future generations. Climate and biodiversity, though ever changing and evolving, are common goods and they need common policies: if we reduce the human Ecological Footprint both the atmosphere and the biosphere will be better off (and our children and grandchildren living in them).

Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding to Climate Change.

Concerns about dangerous climate change and large biodiversity loss are visible throughout the world: unprecedented rates of temperature increases and species extinctions are a reality. In 1999 Dr. Peter Raven, president of the International Botanical Congress, published a paper in which he states that “current extinction rate is now approaching 1,000 times the background rate and may climb to 10,000 times the background rate during the next century, if present trends continue. At this rate, one-third to two-thirds of all species of plants, animals, and other organisms would be lost during the second half of the 21st century, a loss that would easily equal those of past extinctions”. He then outlined seven “Points to Slow the Extinction of Plants”, including financial and capacity building instruments to help developing countries protect 80% of the world’s biodiversity they host. As far as climate change is concerned, the responsibility of developed countries is high in providing the most threatened regions in the world with good instruments to cope with this challenge (or at least examples of them to implement autonomously).

Climate change plays a significant role in this human-induced mass extinction because it is increasing the already large biodiversity losses caused by habitat destruction and fragmentation, water and air pollution, introduction of invasive species. Marine ecosystems will be affected by an increase in sea temperature, but also by ocean acidification, because of the higher concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide (carbonic acid): in fact this reduces the shell formation ability in many organisms. Polar (and mountain) ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change, with effects such as thawing permafrost, decreased snow cover, losses from ice sheets and changes in ocean temperatures. Large impacts on Arctic biodiversity are already evident, pictures of polar bears wandering lost on small icebergs being a scary and sad symbol of the era we live in (even former U.S. President Bush, at the end of his mandate, recalled this image to show his fellow citizens he cared about climate change …)

In this rapidly changing environment it is therefore extremely important that conservation plans include adaption measures for ecosystems accordingly to the predicted regional climate patterns (but models need still to be improved a lot at this scale): dynamic approaches are needed to set good options for future ecosystems and landscapes. It will be necessary to facilitate the movement of species to new geographical locations, as they follow the shifting habitats.

The public concern is growing: in Africa last 28 February young people organized a march from impoverished urban areas to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro to raise awareness on climate change, together with the Kilimanjaro Initiative and the UN’s global UNite to Combat Climate Change campaign. It seems though that the global attention on climate change doesn’t fully consider implications for biodiversity yet: while the negotiations and speeches on climate issues are very popular (and the Nobel Prize was awarded to the entire IPCC together with Al Gore in 2007) the meetings and decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (http://www.cbd.int/) don’t raise comparable interest. Is it because the anthropocentrism is (still) the prevailing philosophy and animals and plants are mainly seen by people as beautiful “supporting actors” on the planet we live on? Right when we are losing control of the global situation it is probably time to reflect on our role of dominant species and acknowledge the fundamental contribution of other organisms to our livelihoods, despite many of us live in the so called Technosphere.

Policies to protect the climate avoiding irreversible effects on the ecosystems need to be strongly interconnected with conservation strategies: preserving natural areas while helping them adapt to the changing climate means hopefully to leave better, or not as compromised, ecosystems to future generations. Climate and biodiversity, though ever changing and evolving, are common goods and they need common policies: if we reduce the human Ecological Footprint both the atmosphere and the biosphere will be better off (and our children and grandchildren living in them).

Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding to Climate Change.

The International Scientific Congress on Climate Change was held in Copenhagen between 10th to 12th March and organised by the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU): the conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report next June. Almost 1,600 scientific contributions of researchers from over 70 countries have been received, and more than 2,500 delegates attended the event.

Connie Hedegaard, Minister of Climate & Energy of Denmark said that we have “to avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable” and she pointed to their example: this European country has become a net energy exporter in 30 years, creating a green growth as a stable solution of the 70s oil crisis. The messages of the congress are various. The risk that current trends of the climatic system will accelerate has a more defined and significant meaning: more probable abrupt and irreversible shifts, and we are already above the worst scenarios published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001. Thus the big problem is trying to at least slow down these trends if not reverse them. The experts tell us that fast regional and global mitigation strategies are needed and that the more we wait the more expensive and ambitious actions will have to be taken in the future. The fact that scientists have come to the point of saying that “Inaction is Inexcusable” means also that people who studied relentlessly for decades are frustrated by the inaction of governments, businesses and people: it is understandable given that their work has not been considered and used enough, if not at all, up to now. They are speaking louder and clearer now. The different roles of politicians and scientists have to be combined. It is time for leaders to rely firmly on science as a basis for tough and unavoidable decisions. A “societal transformation” is being asked for by a wide group of the most intelligent people on the planet including diffusion of sustainable behaviours, innovative leadership, removal of subsidies and reduction of “vested interests”. These are all very explicit messages to politicians and public alike: there is a lot of work to do between now and next December’s COP15.

In the final debate the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, summarised the six messages given by scientists as 6 keywords: Urgency (of the climate change challenge), Direction (long term target to be defined), Action (short term targets to be set), Fairness (to the poorest and most vulnerable), Opportunity (to originate large benefits), Governance (creation of a new global multilateral era). He stated firmly that “Business As Usual is dead” and asked his colleagues to follow Obama’s call for a Green New Deal, already asked for by public opinion and by many political parties in the world.

After the final debate with the panel of scientists an impatient Rasmussen asked for clear words on the CO2 emission target to be set in the new treaty. Prof. Daniel Kammen, Obama’s Senior Policy Advisor, stated that an entire new industrial revolution is needed to cut 1990’s CO2 emissions by 80% in 2050 and Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf agreed on this point. The feeling was that the other panelists didn’t mind… At this point the Prime Minister concluded that the ambition for COP15 can be this -80% long-term objective following the precautionary principle to avoid worse impacts (than the ones presented in 2007 IPCC report) already hypothesized by new works. Overall a more direct communication between scientists and policy makers took place in this huge meeting: now it’s time for delegations to study and prepare the ground for brave steps forward to be made by the international community in Copenhagen’s crucial Conference of the Parties #15. Will we be able to navigate better our “ship” in the solar system during the over 200 rotations it will make before then?

Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding to Climate Change.

There are many beautiful and interesting sights in Washington DC, among them are the White House which has been home to every president of the United States ever since 1800; the Tidal Basin Lake famous for its abundant Japanese cherry trees that blooms in Spring; the Lincoln Memorial and Jefferson Memorial, Washington Monument, etc.

But regardless of the beautiful tourist attractions that one could go to in the State of DC, natural calamities in the form of flooding sometimes happen. And when it does, most household residents in DC do the physical cleanup by themselves without hiring water extraction professionals or experts to deal with the situation. Prior to actual removal of water and cleaning, the starting place of the water which caused the flood should be identified as soon as possible and fixed permanently to prevent it from arising all over again.

Cleaning would usually require having to remove all visible waters first by making use of a wet vacuum pump or a bucket - depending on the volume and availability of equipment. The extraction process must be done immediately or as soon as possible to avoid a higher cost of damage inflicted by the dirty waters and also to thwart of any possibility that the area becomes a source of infectious diseases due to the presence of pathogens.

When all the water has already been extracted, floor coverings should be removed immediately and disposed properly. This includes removing items which came in contact with the flood water that are very porous, because the high absorbency rate of such materials has already contaminated the item in question making it very dirty and highly infectious. No amount of cleaning or fixing could reinstate it in its previously clean state; hence replacements should be made eventually if still needed.

Brushing all affected surfaces with a soapy water solution removes the presence of dirt. Pay particular attention to dirt which is inserted within cracks on walls and floors. Rinse the entire area by using a mop and bucket or a garden hose with a spray gadget.

When the rinsing stage has already been done, disinfecting the entire place is a must to remove remaining germ and fungal spores. Remember that disinfecting does not entirely mean total sanitation but a means of making the area or place habitable again. Never mix chlorine bleach with other cleaning products that contain ammonia as this will produce poisonous gas. Before and during application of any disinfectant, make sure to open all air passage ways and vents to avoid inhaling the vapors of the disinfecting agent upon application.

After having done the disinfection phase, the whole area must be thoroughly dried out, and drying usually takes a couple of days or weeks depending on how big the place is and the weather. The re-occupation of any living space which has been previously flooded must only be done once the area is declared by a professional water extraction expert to be absolutely dry. The dryness is tested by a moisture meter which shows the amount of moisture above and below a given area.

Plasma Gasification Plant (PGP) projects are being developed by at least five gas plasma technology companies, and there are real benefits to be obtained from this technology for the destruction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW).

There is some debate still whether the process has been demonstrated to be a vaible technology which can be reliably operated by our waste management companies at reasonable cost and in compliance with all emissions regulations. However, the consensus seems to be largely in acceptance now that the technology is largely proven and inherently cleaner than incineration.

Although, gasification is used as a power generating technology, and gas plasma plants do provide a power feed-in to the local power grid, it should be realised by all that the purpose of selecting plasma gasification is currently that of achieving maximum waste mass destruction. The intent of the PGP is primarily to provide an efficent and clean method of dispoing of large quantities of residual MSW. Plasma gasification, although it does produce energy from waste is not primarliy an Energy from Waste (EfW) or Waste to Energy technology. There are other better proven, more efficient, and potentially always also cheaper ways to produce Energy from Waste, such as incineration.

PGPs suffer a high sacrificial load from the use of power at the electrodes to generate the plasma, and energy is also expended before the MSW reaches the plasma zone in the gasifier in chopping up and ensuring that the particle size of the waste is quite small. For this reason they do expend a large proportion of the power generated just in maintaining their own internal power demand.

However, as a waste destruction method producing an inert residue without creating at the same time high levels of toxic gaseous emissions the gas plasma process excels according to reports made to date. It has every reason to be cleaner as well because the reactions which take place in the plasma state take place so quickly and completely that the toxic organic chemicals produced in other combustion processes simply don’t get a change to be produced.

For a waste management process PGP therefore holds a very good prospect of adoption, as it is a process which is very efficient at diverting waste away from landfill, and thus scores highly among local authority waste disposal engineers who are constantly seeking to comply with regulations to reduce the amount of organic waste sent to landfill.

The PGP process however, also holds another merit and that is that it is being viewed more favourably by the public than incineration, and one main reason for that would be its clean emissions record when compared with incinerators historically.

Throughout Europe the requirement for BMW to be reduced by ever larger percentages necessitates the use of new technology to achieve this high rate of waste diversion, even after high recycling has also been achieved.

Look out for a plasma gasification plant appearing in a district near you soon, and look favourably upon it!