More than three billion people worldwide continue to depend on solid fuels, including biomass fuels (wood, dung, agricultural residues) and coal, for their energy needs.
Cooking and heating with solid fuels on open fires or traditional stoves results in high levels of indoor air pollution. Indoor smoke contains a range of health-damaging pollutants, such as small particles and carbon monoxide, and particulate pollution levels may be 20 times higher than accepted guideline values.
According to The world health report 2002 indoor air pollution is responsible for 2.7% of the global burden of disease.
WHO’s Programme on Indoor Air Pollution
To combat this substantial and growing burden of disease, WHO has developed a comprehensive programme to support developing countries. WHO's Programme on Indoor Air Pollution focuses on:- Research and evaluation - Capacity building - Evidence for policy-makers
Monday, July 6, 2009
Meat vs. Climate: The Debate Continues
At least since a 2006 United Nations report asserted that livestock is responsible for a full 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions — a higher percentage than that caused by transportation — a debate over meat consumption and climate change has been cooking.
The latest round involves a recent editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Barry M. Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. In it, Mr. Popkin revisits several studies linking meat not just with heart disease and other health issues, but also with worldwide consumption of energy and water resources — and global warming.
Water use, Mr. Popkin writes, is two to five times greater worldwide for animal-source food than for basic crops such as legumes and grains. He further argues that livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process in the United States and is also responsible for one-third of the total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous to surface water.
He also cites the 2006 U.N. study.
“Overall, scholars first question the sustainability of modern agriculture in general,” Mr. Popkin writes, “and second, they question the much higher energy use of producing animal foods.”
Not surprisingly, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers, issued a press release this week disputing Mr. Popkin’s editorial.
“It is beyond dispute that any connection between meat production and global warming is a false one,” said David Martosko, the group’s director of research, in a phone interview.
The C.C.F. said the United Nations’ conclusion that 18 percent of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture was also exaggerated. The group instead points to an Environmental Protection Agency report that puts the figure for all agriculture production — including meat — at just 6 percent.
Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is “stretching the truth beyond recognition.”
“Eating less meat isn’t going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It’s not gonna make a difference,” he said.
Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s assertions, said he stood by his claims.
“This is what the food industry always does — just like the tobacco industry,” he said. “They obfuscate without ever looking at facts
The latest round involves a recent editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Barry M. Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. In it, Mr. Popkin revisits several studies linking meat not just with heart disease and other health issues, but also with worldwide consumption of energy and water resources — and global warming.
Water use, Mr. Popkin writes, is two to five times greater worldwide for animal-source food than for basic crops such as legumes and grains. He further argues that livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process in the United States and is also responsible for one-third of the total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous to surface water.
He also cites the 2006 U.N. study.
“Overall, scholars first question the sustainability of modern agriculture in general,” Mr. Popkin writes, “and second, they question the much higher energy use of producing animal foods.”
Not surprisingly, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers, issued a press release this week disputing Mr. Popkin’s editorial.
“It is beyond dispute that any connection between meat production and global warming is a false one,” said David Martosko, the group’s director of research, in a phone interview.
The C.C.F. said the United Nations’ conclusion that 18 percent of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture was also exaggerated. The group instead points to an Environmental Protection Agency report that puts the figure for all agriculture production — including meat — at just 6 percent.
Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is “stretching the truth beyond recognition.”
“Eating less meat isn’t going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It’s not gonna make a difference,” he said.
Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s assertions, said he stood by his claims.
“This is what the food industry always does — just like the tobacco industry,” he said. “They obfuscate without ever looking at facts
Marketing Solar Panels to Fifth-Graders
Employees of the Sharp Electronics Corporation were at Joyce Kilmer Elementary School in Mahwah, N.J., recently to teach a lesson on climate change and renewable energy. The cartoon image of an ailing Earth — a thermometer sticking out of its mouth — was the opening slide in their presentation.
Climate change and energy are complex issues, so I was interested to observe how they would be distilled by the Japanese electronics giant — and one of the world’s largest makers of solar panels — to an audience of 10- and 11-year-olds. I recently sat in the back of a fifth-grade class and listened in.
Martha Harvey, an associate manager in Sharp’s strategic marketing division, started the class by asking, “Who knows what climate change is?” She called on a few raised hands and received guesses of “A change of weather?” and “A change of climate?” before offering her own answer:
“It turns out that the temperature of the Earth is actually rising,” she said.
Ms. Harvey then asked if anyone knew what C02 is.
“Carbon dioxide,” a student answered.
Ms. Harvey explained that carbon dioxide is actually a good thing, because it helps keep the Earth’s atmosphere warm, but the problem is that there’s now too much of it.
Sharp began its Solar Academy program in the United States in October 2008 (PDF) and so far has presented it at a handful of elementary schools in California (near the company’s solar division in Huntington Beach), and in New York and New Jersey (Sharp’s corporate headquarters in the United States are in Mahwah).
The initiative is based on a similar program in Japan that, since 2007, has been presented at 700 schools and to 50,000 students.
It makes business sense, according to Stewart Mitchell, the chief strategy officer for Sharp, who started the American version of the program.
“The big picture is, you really want to try to tie your focus on social responsibility as a company into your business model,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The more that students learn about climate change, and the more they learn about the importance of renewable energy — it ties back to feeding into our business model of being in the solar business.”
The renewable energy portion of the presentation mentions several technologies –- including hydro, wind, and ocean power –- but solar quickly becomes the focus. The students watched a short video about how solar panels work, and then tried a hands-on activity in which they discovered how much work is required to power a 60-watt light bulb with hand cranks, compared with using a small solar panel.
At the end of the class, the students were given workbooks and Sharp-brand solar-powered calculators to take home with them.
Bill Howe, a fifth-grade science teacher, told the Sharp instructors afterward that they should make the curriculum available to teachers everywhere and that he would be happy to help in any way possible. “I think my students are excited by the idea that there’s a huge change going on,” Mr. Howe said. “I think they’re intrigued by the new technology.”
Don Chiossi, another fifth-grade science teacher, also gave the program a thumbs-up. “We cover forms of energy in our classroom, but to have people come in from the community to talk about it helps even more,” he said. “Plus, the kids like the calculators.”
The students, for their part, did seem to enjoy the class — though they were not without questions for the Sharp team: “If you used only solar power,” asked one student, “wouldn’t you not be able to use it at nighttime?”
Climate change and energy are complex issues, so I was interested to observe how they would be distilled by the Japanese electronics giant — and one of the world’s largest makers of solar panels — to an audience of 10- and 11-year-olds. I recently sat in the back of a fifth-grade class and listened in.
Martha Harvey, an associate manager in Sharp’s strategic marketing division, started the class by asking, “Who knows what climate change is?” She called on a few raised hands and received guesses of “A change of weather?” and “A change of climate?” before offering her own answer:
“It turns out that the temperature of the Earth is actually rising,” she said.
Ms. Harvey then asked if anyone knew what C02 is.
“Carbon dioxide,” a student answered.
Ms. Harvey explained that carbon dioxide is actually a good thing, because it helps keep the Earth’s atmosphere warm, but the problem is that there’s now too much of it.
Sharp began its Solar Academy program in the United States in October 2008 (PDF) and so far has presented it at a handful of elementary schools in California (near the company’s solar division in Huntington Beach), and in New York and New Jersey (Sharp’s corporate headquarters in the United States are in Mahwah).
The initiative is based on a similar program in Japan that, since 2007, has been presented at 700 schools and to 50,000 students.
It makes business sense, according to Stewart Mitchell, the chief strategy officer for Sharp, who started the American version of the program.
“The big picture is, you really want to try to tie your focus on social responsibility as a company into your business model,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The more that students learn about climate change, and the more they learn about the importance of renewable energy — it ties back to feeding into our business model of being in the solar business.”
The renewable energy portion of the presentation mentions several technologies –- including hydro, wind, and ocean power –- but solar quickly becomes the focus. The students watched a short video about how solar panels work, and then tried a hands-on activity in which they discovered how much work is required to power a 60-watt light bulb with hand cranks, compared with using a small solar panel.
At the end of the class, the students were given workbooks and Sharp-brand solar-powered calculators to take home with them.
Bill Howe, a fifth-grade science teacher, told the Sharp instructors afterward that they should make the curriculum available to teachers everywhere and that he would be happy to help in any way possible. “I think my students are excited by the idea that there’s a huge change going on,” Mr. Howe said. “I think they’re intrigued by the new technology.”
Don Chiossi, another fifth-grade science teacher, also gave the program a thumbs-up. “We cover forms of energy in our classroom, but to have people come in from the community to talk about it helps even more,” he said. “Plus, the kids like the calculators.”
The students, for their part, did seem to enjoy the class — though they were not without questions for the Sharp team: “If you used only solar power,” asked one student, “wouldn’t you not be able to use it at nighttime?”
Cities Mull How to Sell ‘Green’ Agendas
City officials, urban planners, architects and a variety of advocacy groups gathered in Portland, Ore., over the weekend for the National League of Cities’ first conference devoted entirely to sustainability.
In addition to providing cities with ideas for sustainable planning, the “Green Cities Conference” has highlighted opportunities for economic development, improved quality of life, urban renewal and historic preservation that can come with sustainable design, public transportation and high-density development.
Prominent among the bits of advice being doled out to city leaders at the conference: ditch the climate-change talk and focus instead on the more concrete benefits of a green agenda.
“If you go at it as a climate change issue, you won’t get anywhere,” said Christine McEntee, an executive vice president at the American Institute of Architects. “I believe it’s a huge moral problem, but not everybody does,” she said. “But everyone wants to see their energy bills lower and see daylight in their buildings and have more walking opportunities.”
Meanwhile, the AARP, which lobbies Congress on behalf of citizens age 50 and older on issues like Medicare funding, appeared to recognize the sustainability movement as an opportunity to reframe some of the community-access issues they’ve long fought to change.
AARP ” isn’t a green organization,” said Elinor Ginzler, the group’s spokeswoman for housing and mobility issues. But, she said, AARP discourages car-centric planning and promotes walkable neighborhoods and public transportation as a means to help maintain independence for citizens who can no longer drive. Sustainability, she said, is also a “legacy issue” for the organization’s members, who are interested in creating communities for future generations.
Kathie Novak, mayor of Northglenn, Colo., and president of the National League of Cities, echoed that sentiment. “We’re all going to be old whether we like it or not,” she said. “If we can use that as the impetus for making our communities more sustainable, I think it’s wonderful.”
Historic preservation and rehabilitation can also provide a lens for promoting sustainability, but green reasoning isn’t usually what wins community support for a project, said Art DeMuro, a Portland developer and a member of the city’s Historic Landmarks Commission. Projects happen because they also boost property values in blighted neighborhoods, spur revitalization in the urban core and maintain a city’s cultural heritage, he said.
“Setting aside material conservation issues,” said Mr. DeMuro, “these buildings are irreplaceable gifts from past generations and we have an obligation to protect those cultural resources.”
In addition to providing cities with ideas for sustainable planning, the “Green Cities Conference” has highlighted opportunities for economic development, improved quality of life, urban renewal and historic preservation that can come with sustainable design, public transportation and high-density development.
Prominent among the bits of advice being doled out to city leaders at the conference: ditch the climate-change talk and focus instead on the more concrete benefits of a green agenda.
“If you go at it as a climate change issue, you won’t get anywhere,” said Christine McEntee, an executive vice president at the American Institute of Architects. “I believe it’s a huge moral problem, but not everybody does,” she said. “But everyone wants to see their energy bills lower and see daylight in their buildings and have more walking opportunities.”
Meanwhile, the AARP, which lobbies Congress on behalf of citizens age 50 and older on issues like Medicare funding, appeared to recognize the sustainability movement as an opportunity to reframe some of the community-access issues they’ve long fought to change.
AARP ” isn’t a green organization,” said Elinor Ginzler, the group’s spokeswoman for housing and mobility issues. But, she said, AARP discourages car-centric planning and promotes walkable neighborhoods and public transportation as a means to help maintain independence for citizens who can no longer drive. Sustainability, she said, is also a “legacy issue” for the organization’s members, who are interested in creating communities for future generations.
Kathie Novak, mayor of Northglenn, Colo., and president of the National League of Cities, echoed that sentiment. “We’re all going to be old whether we like it or not,” she said. “If we can use that as the impetus for making our communities more sustainable, I think it’s wonderful.”
Historic preservation and rehabilitation can also provide a lens for promoting sustainability, but green reasoning isn’t usually what wins community support for a project, said Art DeMuro, a Portland developer and a member of the city’s Historic Landmarks Commission. Projects happen because they also boost property values in blighted neighborhoods, spur revitalization in the urban core and maintain a city’s cultural heritage, he said.
“Setting aside material conservation issues,” said Mr. DeMuro, “these buildings are irreplaceable gifts from past generations and we have an obligation to protect those cultural resources.”
Spam and Global Warming?
Last week, “The Carbon Footprint of E-mail Spam Report” made the rounds on the Internet thanks in part to write-ups at various news Web sites.
The study — conducted by the research firm I.C.F. International, and commissioned by the security company McAfee (which, as it happens, also sells one of the leading anti-virus and anti-spam software suites) — examined the environmental impact of junk e-mail.
Among the findings:
• An estimated 62 trillion spam e-mail messages were sent worldwide in 2008.• The annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam worldwide totals 33 billion kilowatt-hours, equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million homes.• A single spam message produces the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions associated with driving three feet.
The solution? Not surprisingly, Jeff Green, a senior vice president for product development at McAfee Avert Labs, said in a statement on the McAfee Web site, “Stopping spam at its source, as well investing in state-of-the-art spam filtering technology, will save time and money, and will pay dividends to the planet by reducing carbon emissions as well.”
It remains unclear whether global warming is a concern among spammers themselves.
The study — conducted by the research firm I.C.F. International, and commissioned by the security company McAfee (which, as it happens, also sells one of the leading anti-virus and anti-spam software suites) — examined the environmental impact of junk e-mail.
Among the findings:
• An estimated 62 trillion spam e-mail messages were sent worldwide in 2008.• The annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam worldwide totals 33 billion kilowatt-hours, equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million homes.• A single spam message produces the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions associated with driving three feet.
The solution? Not surprisingly, Jeff Green, a senior vice president for product development at McAfee Avert Labs, said in a statement on the McAfee Web site, “Stopping spam at its source, as well investing in state-of-the-art spam filtering technology, will save time and money, and will pay dividends to the planet by reducing carbon emissions as well.”
It remains unclear whether global warming is a concern among spammers themselves.
Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green?
THE rush to go on a carbon diet,even by proxy is in overdrive.In addition to the celebrities — Leo, Brad, George — politicians like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are now running, at least part of the time, carbon-neutral campaigns. A lengthening list of big businesses — international banks, London’s taxi fleet, luxury airlines — also claim “carbon neutrality.” Silverjet, a plush new trans-Atlantic carrier, bills itself as the first fully carbon-neutral airline. It puts about $28 of each round-trip ticket into a fund for global projects that, in theory, squelch as much carbon dioxide as the airline generates — about 1.2 tons per passenger, the airline says.
Also, a largely unregulated carbon-cutting business has sprung up. In this market, consultants or companies estimate a person’s or company’s output of greenhouse gases. Then, these businesses sell “offsets,” which pay for projects elsewhere that void or sop up an equal amount of emissions — say, by planting trees or, as one new company proposes, fertilizing the ocean so algae can pull the gas out of the air. Recent counts by Business Week magazine and several environmental watchdog groups tally the trade in offsets at more than $100 million a year and growing blazingly fast.
But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?
On this, environmentalists aren’t neutral, and they don’t agree. Some believe it helps build support, but others argue that these purchases don’t accomplish anything meaningful — other than giving someone a slightly better feeling (or greener reputation) after buying a 6,000-square-foot house or passing the million-mile mark in a frequent-flier program. In fact, to many environmentalists, the carbon-neutral campaign is a sign of the times — easy on the sacrifice and big on the consumerism.
As long as the use of fossil fuels keeps climbing — which is happening relentlessly around the world — the emission of greenhouse gases will keep rising. The average American, by several estimates, generates more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide or related gases a year; the average resident of the planet about 4.5 tons.
At this rate, environmentalists say, buying someone else’s squelched emissions is all but insignificant.
“The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental grant-making group. “Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins.”
“This whole game is badly in need of a modern Martin Luther,” Mr. Hayes added.
Some environmental campaigners defend this marketplace as a legitimate, if imperfect, way to support an environmental ethic and political movement, even if the numbers don’t all add up.
“We can’t stop global warming with voluntary offsets, but they offer an option for individuals looking for a way to contribute to the solution in addition to reducing their own emissions and urging their elected representatives to support good policy,” said Daniel A. Lashof, the science director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
But he and others agree that more oversight is needed. Voluntary standards and codes of conduct are evolving in Europe and the United States to ensure that a ton of carbon dioxide purchased is actually a ton of carbon dioxide avoided.
The first attempt at an industry report card, commissioned by the environmental group Clean Air/Cool Planet (which has some involvement in the business), gave decidedly mixed reviews to the field, selecting eight sellers of carbon offsets that it concluded were reasonably reliable.
But the report, “A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon-Offset Providers,” concluded that this market was no different than any other, saying, “if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
Prices vary widely for offsetting the carbon dioxide tonnage released by a long plane flight, S.U.V. commute or energy-hungry house. The report suggested that the cheapest offsets may not be legitimate.
For example, depending on where you shop for carbon credits, avoiding the ton of carbon dioxide released by driving a midsize car about 2,000 miles could cost $5 or $25, according to data in the report.
Mr. Hayes said there were legitimate companies and organizations that help people and companies measure their emissions and find ways to cut them, both directly and indirectly by purchasing certain kinds of credits. But overall, he said, an investment in such credits — given the questions about their reliability — should be looked at more as conventional charity (presuming you check to be sure the projects are real) and less as something like a license to binge on private jet travel.y proxy, is in overdrive
Also, a largely unregulated carbon-cutting business has sprung up. In this market, consultants or companies estimate a person’s or company’s output of greenhouse gases. Then, these businesses sell “offsets,” which pay for projects elsewhere that void or sop up an equal amount of emissions — say, by planting trees or, as one new company proposes, fertilizing the ocean so algae can pull the gas out of the air. Recent counts by Business Week magazine and several environmental watchdog groups tally the trade in offsets at more than $100 million a year and growing blazingly fast.
But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?
On this, environmentalists aren’t neutral, and they don’t agree. Some believe it helps build support, but others argue that these purchases don’t accomplish anything meaningful — other than giving someone a slightly better feeling (or greener reputation) after buying a 6,000-square-foot house or passing the million-mile mark in a frequent-flier program. In fact, to many environmentalists, the carbon-neutral campaign is a sign of the times — easy on the sacrifice and big on the consumerism.
As long as the use of fossil fuels keeps climbing — which is happening relentlessly around the world — the emission of greenhouse gases will keep rising. The average American, by several estimates, generates more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide or related gases a year; the average resident of the planet about 4.5 tons.
At this rate, environmentalists say, buying someone else’s squelched emissions is all but insignificant.
“The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental grant-making group. “Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins.”
“This whole game is badly in need of a modern Martin Luther,” Mr. Hayes added.
Some environmental campaigners defend this marketplace as a legitimate, if imperfect, way to support an environmental ethic and political movement, even if the numbers don’t all add up.
“We can’t stop global warming with voluntary offsets, but they offer an option for individuals looking for a way to contribute to the solution in addition to reducing their own emissions and urging their elected representatives to support good policy,” said Daniel A. Lashof, the science director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
But he and others agree that more oversight is needed. Voluntary standards and codes of conduct are evolving in Europe and the United States to ensure that a ton of carbon dioxide purchased is actually a ton of carbon dioxide avoided.
The first attempt at an industry report card, commissioned by the environmental group Clean Air/Cool Planet (which has some involvement in the business), gave decidedly mixed reviews to the field, selecting eight sellers of carbon offsets that it concluded were reasonably reliable.
But the report, “A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon-Offset Providers,” concluded that this market was no different than any other, saying, “if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
Prices vary widely for offsetting the carbon dioxide tonnage released by a long plane flight, S.U.V. commute or energy-hungry house. The report suggested that the cheapest offsets may not be legitimate.
For example, depending on where you shop for carbon credits, avoiding the ton of carbon dioxide released by driving a midsize car about 2,000 miles could cost $5 or $25, according to data in the report.
Mr. Hayes said there were legitimate companies and organizations that help people and companies measure their emissions and find ways to cut them, both directly and indirectly by purchasing certain kinds of credits. But overall, he said, an investment in such credits — given the questions about their reliability — should be looked at more as conventional charity (presuming you check to be sure the projects are real) and less as something like a license to binge on private jet travel.y proxy, is in overdrive
Global Warming
On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role.
The addition of that single word "very" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.
The addition of that single word "very" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)