The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District have settled claims brought against two biomass power plants in California’s Central Valley, the agencies announced yesterday.
The companies have agreed to pay a combined civil penalty of $835,000 to resolve allegations they violated federal Clean Air Act and District rules by emitting nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide exceeding their permit limits.
The settlements require both facilities to install equipment to improve monitoring and reporting of air pollutants by enhancing automation of control systems for nitrogen oxides emissions. Under the settlements, both companies also agreed to prepare more stringent control plans to minimize emissions of air pollutants.
According to the EPA, the companies have already installed controls it estimates will reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by up to 180 tons per year and carbon monoxide by up to 365 tons per year.
Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass, LLC and Merced Power, LLC will pay penalties of $343,000 and $492,000, respectively.
Biomass power plants use green waste from farms and other operations that would otherwise be subject to open burning, and construction debris that might have gone to a landfill, to generate power.
The San Joaquin Valley, home to both facilities, boasts five of 10 cites with the worst air quality in the nation according to a recent survey by the American Lung Association, the Sacramento Business Journal reports. According to the EPA, the region exceeds the national health standards for ozone and particulate matter.
The proposed consent decrees were lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, and are subject to a 30-day public comment period prior to approval by the court.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Study links rise in rain and snow to human actions
An increase in heavy precipitation that has afflicted many countries is at least partly a consequence of human influence on the atmosphere, climate scientists reported in a new study.
In the first major paper of its kind, the researchers used elaborate computer programs that simulate the climate to analyze whether the rise in severe rainstorms, heavy snowfalls and similar events could be explained by natural variability in the atmosphere. They found that it could not, and that the increase made sense only when the computers factored in the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.
As reflected in previous studies, the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by about 7 percent over the last half of the 20th century, at least for the land areas of the Northern Hemisphere for which sufficient figures are available to do an analysis.
The principal finding of the new study is "that this 7 percent is well outside the bounds of natural variability," said Francis W. Zwiers, a Canadian climate scientist who took part in the research. The paper is being published in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature.
The paper covers climate trends from 1951 to 1999 and therefore does not include any analysis of last year's extreme precipitation, including catastrophic floods in Pakistan, China and Australia as well as parts of the United States, including Tennessee, Arkansas and California. However, the paper is likely to bolster a growing sense among climate scientists that events like the 2010 floods will become more common.
Indeed, an increase of weather extremes has been a fundamental prediction of climate science for decades. Basic physics suggests that as the earth warms, precipitation extremes will become more intense, winter and summer, simply because warmer air can carry more water vapor. Weather statistics confirm that this has begun to happen.
Scientists have long been reluctant to attribute any specific weather event to global warming, but a handful of papers that do so are beginning to appear in the scientific literature. One such installment is being published on Thursday in Nature as a companion piece to the broader paper. It finds that severe rains that flooded England and Wales in 2000, the wettest autumn since record-keeping began there in 1766, were made substantially more likely by the greenhouse gases released by human activity.
In that analysis, scientists at the University of Oxford used computer time donated by the public to analyze the climate of Britain in 2000 as it actually existed and to compare that with a hypothetical climate in which the Industrial Revolution never happened and few greenhouse gases were released.
The computers found that the chances of those memorable floods, which sent geese swimming through city streets, were roughly doubled in a climate with the greenhouse gases.
That it took a decade to come to that conclusion illustrates one of the major problems of climate science at the moment. Researchers are barraged with questions about weather extremes like the recent winters in Europe and the United States and the heat waves and droughts of last summer.
Yet, even when adequate weather statistics are available for an affected region, the scientists need years to run computer analyses of any specific event and calculate whether it was made more or less likely by global warming.
In a briefing for reporters, a leading climate scientist for the British government, Peter A. Stott, acknowledged a need for more rapid analysis of weather extremes and said that researchers were working to develop this capability.
The problem is becoming more than theoretical. Billions of dollars have been pledged by rich countries to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
"Because that money is on the table, it's suddenly going to be in everybody's interest to be a victim of climate change," said Myles R. Allen, a University of Oxford researcher whose group ran the British flood study. "We need urgently to develop the science base to be able to distinguish genuine impacts of climate change from unfortunate consequences of bad weather."
The analyses being published on Thursday can be expected to draw fire from climate-change contrarians, who have long scoffed at computer simulations of the climate. They point out that such programs cannot fully capture the complexity of the real world.
Mainstream scientists acknowledge that point to a degree but contend that the programs are becoming more accurate. They also note that the programs are the only tools available to answer questions about how much humans are influencing the climate.
"In the future, it won't be enough for your weather service to predict the weather," Dr. Allen said. "They'll have to explain it as well."
courtsey.ndtv india
In the first major paper of its kind, the researchers used elaborate computer programs that simulate the climate to analyze whether the rise in severe rainstorms, heavy snowfalls and similar events could be explained by natural variability in the atmosphere. They found that it could not, and that the increase made sense only when the computers factored in the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.
As reflected in previous studies, the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by about 7 percent over the last half of the 20th century, at least for the land areas of the Northern Hemisphere for which sufficient figures are available to do an analysis.
The principal finding of the new study is "that this 7 percent is well outside the bounds of natural variability," said Francis W. Zwiers, a Canadian climate scientist who took part in the research. The paper is being published in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature.
The paper covers climate trends from 1951 to 1999 and therefore does not include any analysis of last year's extreme precipitation, including catastrophic floods in Pakistan, China and Australia as well as parts of the United States, including Tennessee, Arkansas and California. However, the paper is likely to bolster a growing sense among climate scientists that events like the 2010 floods will become more common.
Indeed, an increase of weather extremes has been a fundamental prediction of climate science for decades. Basic physics suggests that as the earth warms, precipitation extremes will become more intense, winter and summer, simply because warmer air can carry more water vapor. Weather statistics confirm that this has begun to happen.
Scientists have long been reluctant to attribute any specific weather event to global warming, but a handful of papers that do so are beginning to appear in the scientific literature. One such installment is being published on Thursday in Nature as a companion piece to the broader paper. It finds that severe rains that flooded England and Wales in 2000, the wettest autumn since record-keeping began there in 1766, were made substantially more likely by the greenhouse gases released by human activity.
In that analysis, scientists at the University of Oxford used computer time donated by the public to analyze the climate of Britain in 2000 as it actually existed and to compare that with a hypothetical climate in which the Industrial Revolution never happened and few greenhouse gases were released.
The computers found that the chances of those memorable floods, which sent geese swimming through city streets, were roughly doubled in a climate with the greenhouse gases.
That it took a decade to come to that conclusion illustrates one of the major problems of climate science at the moment. Researchers are barraged with questions about weather extremes like the recent winters in Europe and the United States and the heat waves and droughts of last summer.
Yet, even when adequate weather statistics are available for an affected region, the scientists need years to run computer analyses of any specific event and calculate whether it was made more or less likely by global warming.
In a briefing for reporters, a leading climate scientist for the British government, Peter A. Stott, acknowledged a need for more rapid analysis of weather extremes and said that researchers were working to develop this capability.
The problem is becoming more than theoretical. Billions of dollars have been pledged by rich countries to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
"Because that money is on the table, it's suddenly going to be in everybody's interest to be a victim of climate change," said Myles R. Allen, a University of Oxford researcher whose group ran the British flood study. "We need urgently to develop the science base to be able to distinguish genuine impacts of climate change from unfortunate consequences of bad weather."
The analyses being published on Thursday can be expected to draw fire from climate-change contrarians, who have long scoffed at computer simulations of the climate. They point out that such programs cannot fully capture the complexity of the real world.
Mainstream scientists acknowledge that point to a degree but contend that the programs are becoming more accurate. They also note that the programs are the only tools available to answer questions about how much humans are influencing the climate.
"In the future, it won't be enough for your weather service to predict the weather," Dr. Allen said. "They'll have to explain it as well."
courtsey.ndtv india
Monday, November 15, 2010
Selling Green in a Down Economy: A Prescription for Success
With all of the statistics and research reports heralding sustainability’s growing importance in business management practices, one could reasonably assume that technology providers are successfully exploiting the connection that exists between being greener and improving a company’s operational and financial performance. However, the more I speak with industry analysts, clients, prospects and other technology executives it’s apparent that selling green in a business-to-business environment hasn’t necessarily evolved into a slam dunk.
Now some attribute the hesitancy expressed on the part of executives as a by-product of a struggling economy. But the inability to generate significant traction highlighting the environmental gains associated with different software applications and services has more to do with message and approach than the willingness of prospective clients to advance their commitments to sustainability.
A few weeks ago, our company president had the opportunity to address a gathering of technology executives on this very subject, talking at length about how to build a more compelling business case for sustainability. By and large, most corporations have the desire to conduct business in a more environmentally friendly manner – that I firmly believe – but as a technology vendor, touting green doesn’t preclude you from demonstrating that a solution or service is capable of generating financial and/or operational gains.
Most technology solutions fall into well-defined categories such as CRM, ERP and BPM. Whether these types of applications help improve internal workflows or manage customer data better, they’ve been designed to address a very traditional business problem. The notion that a software solution can be used to deliver measurable results against an organization’s green initiatives has only recently come to light. Yet because green is perceived to be ‘hot’ we see a lot of companies integrating it into their branding and product messaging, often to the detriment of a solution’s core value proposition. When it comes to building a compelling business case for sustainability, this is perhaps the biggest mistake a company can make.
Given the pervasiveness of this approach in the B2B arena – and what some would fairly label as saturation in the consumer market – there’s a heightened sensitivity to greenwashing. As a result, many executives are learning to view sales pitches through a skeptic’s lens. At the same time, it’s critical to remember that while awareness for the issues surrounding sustainability are becoming more common at the C-level, many of the individuals who bear the responsibility for evaluating and purchasing technology solutions simply haven’t been charged with incorporating environmental metrics into the decision making process.
So long as purchasing decisions continue to place the most emphasis on financial and operational gains, companies need to build the business case from the ground up and address the desire for greater efficiency, lower costs, improved service and market leadership. In reality, green shouldn’t even enter into the conversation until core ROI has been presented and understood. As companies begin to interject green into the conversation, consider – from a business perspective – how sustainability can contribute to (1) revenue growth, (2) shareholder value, (3) cost reduction and (4) innovation. Placing sustainability within the context of these areas places the green conversation in a language that every executive speaks.
Companies build financial models all of the time to prove out cost and process efficiency. In order to move sustainability up the proverbial food chain (faster), we need to begin applying that level of due diligence to creating models that not only illustrate financial savings but measurable environmental benefits as well. Using vague, generalized statements serves only to obscure genuine business and financial gains that can come in the form of reduced carbon emissions or electronic waste.
Granted there are a lot of factors that get thrown into the pot when deciding on one solution over another but I think it’s infinitely more difficult for companies to reject a solution with a demonstrable ability to create a six-, seven- or even eight-figure savings.
Whether we’re in a recession or not, the appetite for green exists. It’s just that executives aren’t likely to buy in just because a product or service can help them go green. We’ve moved into a new era where sustainability is now seen as a more strategic endeavor, and therefore given greater scrutiny, particularly in relation to its contribution to the bottom line. If technology providers want to forge genuine links between their products and sustainability, the value proposition has to be rooted in helping companies advance their financial and operational performance.
Trade Wings’ Chief Executive Officer and Founder Todd Adelman is passionate about driving business model innovation within the Telecom industry. With more than 20 years of supply chain and asset management experience, Todd leads a number of strategic initiatives designed to establish Trade Wings as a trusted authority on the development and implementation of reuse optimization strategies for network assets.
Now some attribute the hesitancy expressed on the part of executives as a by-product of a struggling economy. But the inability to generate significant traction highlighting the environmental gains associated with different software applications and services has more to do with message and approach than the willingness of prospective clients to advance their commitments to sustainability.
A few weeks ago, our company president had the opportunity to address a gathering of technology executives on this very subject, talking at length about how to build a more compelling business case for sustainability. By and large, most corporations have the desire to conduct business in a more environmentally friendly manner – that I firmly believe – but as a technology vendor, touting green doesn’t preclude you from demonstrating that a solution or service is capable of generating financial and/or operational gains.
Most technology solutions fall into well-defined categories such as CRM, ERP and BPM. Whether these types of applications help improve internal workflows or manage customer data better, they’ve been designed to address a very traditional business problem. The notion that a software solution can be used to deliver measurable results against an organization’s green initiatives has only recently come to light. Yet because green is perceived to be ‘hot’ we see a lot of companies integrating it into their branding and product messaging, often to the detriment of a solution’s core value proposition. When it comes to building a compelling business case for sustainability, this is perhaps the biggest mistake a company can make.
Given the pervasiveness of this approach in the B2B arena – and what some would fairly label as saturation in the consumer market – there’s a heightened sensitivity to greenwashing. As a result, many executives are learning to view sales pitches through a skeptic’s lens. At the same time, it’s critical to remember that while awareness for the issues surrounding sustainability are becoming more common at the C-level, many of the individuals who bear the responsibility for evaluating and purchasing technology solutions simply haven’t been charged with incorporating environmental metrics into the decision making process.
So long as purchasing decisions continue to place the most emphasis on financial and operational gains, companies need to build the business case from the ground up and address the desire for greater efficiency, lower costs, improved service and market leadership. In reality, green shouldn’t even enter into the conversation until core ROI has been presented and understood. As companies begin to interject green into the conversation, consider – from a business perspective – how sustainability can contribute to (1) revenue growth, (2) shareholder value, (3) cost reduction and (4) innovation. Placing sustainability within the context of these areas places the green conversation in a language that every executive speaks.
Companies build financial models all of the time to prove out cost and process efficiency. In order to move sustainability up the proverbial food chain (faster), we need to begin applying that level of due diligence to creating models that not only illustrate financial savings but measurable environmental benefits as well. Using vague, generalized statements serves only to obscure genuine business and financial gains that can come in the form of reduced carbon emissions or electronic waste.
Granted there are a lot of factors that get thrown into the pot when deciding on one solution over another but I think it’s infinitely more difficult for companies to reject a solution with a demonstrable ability to create a six-, seven- or even eight-figure savings.
Whether we’re in a recession or not, the appetite for green exists. It’s just that executives aren’t likely to buy in just because a product or service can help them go green. We’ve moved into a new era where sustainability is now seen as a more strategic endeavor, and therefore given greater scrutiny, particularly in relation to its contribution to the bottom line. If technology providers want to forge genuine links between their products and sustainability, the value proposition has to be rooted in helping companies advance their financial and operational performance.
Trade Wings’ Chief Executive Officer and Founder Todd Adelman is passionate about driving business model innovation within the Telecom industry. With more than 20 years of supply chain and asset management experience, Todd leads a number of strategic initiatives designed to establish Trade Wings as a trusted authority on the development and implementation of reuse optimization strategies for network assets.
Solar, Wind Power Roll at Dow Jones, Menasha, Spruce and Prudential
Several business headquarters including those at Dow Jones, Menasha and Spruce Environmental Technologies, as well as office building complexes are adding renewable energy to their electricity mix.
As an example, Dow Jones & Company is installing solar panels at its corporate office in South Brunswick, N.J. The installation is part of a project to construct a solar-power system that at 4.1 megawatts will be one of the largest solar installations at a single commercial site in the U.S, according to the company.
The solar installation will consist of more than 13,000 solar panels covering nearly 230,000 square feet of parking space on Dow Jones’s Bernard Kilgore campus. The system is expected to produce the equivalent of 5 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, which is enough energy to power the servers and computers that support the global operations of Dow Jones.
The system, which was announced in April, is scheduled for completion in the spring of 2011.
Also in New Jersey, Prudential Financial has installed solar panels on two buildings at its office complex in Roseland. The company also has installed solar panels in its Scottsdale, Arizona office building. Together, the panels will produce an estimated 2.3 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually and reduce the company’s greenhouse gas emissions by 3.2 million pounds a year.
The 2,678 panels installed in the Roseland buildings will generate approximately 4 percent of the power use in that office campus, with a peak power output of 500 kilowatt hours.
In Wisconsin, the Menasha Corp. plans to install five wind turbines at its headquarters and factory in Neenah, which is touted as the largest wind installation at a business in northeastern Wisconsin, reports JSOnline.
The five 20-kilowatt turbines will be purchased from Renewegy. At 115 tall, the wind turbines are one-fourth the height of new utility-scale turbines that were erected recently in Brown County, according to the article.
The turbines will generate enough power to provide for the basic office needs at the company’s corporate headquarters and its subsidiary, Menasha Packaging, reports JSOnline.
The company’s other sustainability efforts include upgrades for corrugators, high efficiency lighting and heat capture from the corrugators to heat other parts of its building.
Spruce Environmental Technologies recently completed the installation of a solar array to provide electricity for its Ward Hill, Massachusetts, headquarters building. The 78.8-kilowatt (kW) array was installed by Nexamp, and will supply one-third of the building’s electricity needs. It also is expected to offset approximately 137,150 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.
When Spruce is not using the solar energy generated by the system, such as during holidays or weekend, the unused power will be available to the National Grid
As an example, Dow Jones & Company is installing solar panels at its corporate office in South Brunswick, N.J. The installation is part of a project to construct a solar-power system that at 4.1 megawatts will be one of the largest solar installations at a single commercial site in the U.S, according to the company.
The solar installation will consist of more than 13,000 solar panels covering nearly 230,000 square feet of parking space on Dow Jones’s Bernard Kilgore campus. The system is expected to produce the equivalent of 5 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, which is enough energy to power the servers and computers that support the global operations of Dow Jones.
The system, which was announced in April, is scheduled for completion in the spring of 2011.
Also in New Jersey, Prudential Financial has installed solar panels on two buildings at its office complex in Roseland. The company also has installed solar panels in its Scottsdale, Arizona office building. Together, the panels will produce an estimated 2.3 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually and reduce the company’s greenhouse gas emissions by 3.2 million pounds a year.
The 2,678 panels installed in the Roseland buildings will generate approximately 4 percent of the power use in that office campus, with a peak power output of 500 kilowatt hours.
In Wisconsin, the Menasha Corp. plans to install five wind turbines at its headquarters and factory in Neenah, which is touted as the largest wind installation at a business in northeastern Wisconsin, reports JSOnline.
The five 20-kilowatt turbines will be purchased from Renewegy. At 115 tall, the wind turbines are one-fourth the height of new utility-scale turbines that were erected recently in Brown County, according to the article.
The turbines will generate enough power to provide for the basic office needs at the company’s corporate headquarters and its subsidiary, Menasha Packaging, reports JSOnline.
The company’s other sustainability efforts include upgrades for corrugators, high efficiency lighting and heat capture from the corrugators to heat other parts of its building.
Spruce Environmental Technologies recently completed the installation of a solar array to provide electricity for its Ward Hill, Massachusetts, headquarters building. The 78.8-kilowatt (kW) array was installed by Nexamp, and will supply one-third of the building’s electricity needs. It also is expected to offset approximately 137,150 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.
When Spruce is not using the solar energy generated by the system, such as during holidays or weekend, the unused power will be available to the National Grid
Facebook Can’t Satisfy Greenpeace with New Data Center Plans
Facebook’s decision to build its second data center in North Carolina shows that the company continues to see energy-efficient facilities as the best way to reduce its carbon footprint rather than building it near renewable energy sources, reports Data Center Knowledge.
Facebook has published several case studies of energy-efficiency projects that have reduced the carbon impact of the company’s data centers, according to the article.
At a recent panel session, Facebook’s director of data center engineering, shared tips on how the company has improved energy efficiency and cut costs at its data centers.
Facebook says it is currently building one of the most energy-efficient data centers to date in Prineville, Oregon. However, Greenpeace started a campaign in February to get Facebook to power the data center with renewable energy instead of coal.
Facebook signed a deal to source its energy from PacificCorp, which uses 83 percent coal in its energy mix, according to the Associated Press, reported Reuters, in September. But PacifiCorp said the number is 58 percent with the remainder from natural gas (20 percent), hydro (10 percent) and renewable energy (10 percent).
Greenpeace also said that Facebook plans to double the size of its data center, which translates into twice the energy use and twice the coal.
The new Facebook site in Forest City is served by Duke Energy, which has an energy mix similar to that in Prineville, reports Data Center Knowledge. In 2009, Duke Energy generated 54.7 percent of its power from coal, 27 percent from nuclear power plants, 12 percent from wind and hydro-electric power, and 6.6 percent from natural gas, according to the article. The utility expects its mix of renewables to improve when it adds additional wind power generation.
But Greenpeace is not happy. “Facebook has again chosen a location that will increase demand for dirty energy,” said Greenpeace energy campaigner Gary Cook in a blog post. “Good corporate citizenship involves more than setting up a webpage dedicated to green issues, or becoming members of green clubs, just as energy efficiency is only the first step to managing your environmental footprint.”
The Greenpeace statement is in reference to the recent launch of Facebook’s new “green” page that details what the company is doing in the environmental space, and its recent partnerships with the Alliance to Save Energy and the Digital Energy Solutions Campaign (DESC).
Cook said Facebook missed an opportunity to follow the lead of Yahoo, which has built hydro-powered data centers in Quincy, Washington and Lockport, N.Y., reports Data Center Knowledge.
Facebook says the North Carolina data center will use many of the techniques used to conserve power at its Prineville site. These could include the use of evaporative cooling instead of a chiller system, re-using excess heat expelled by servers to heat office space in the building, and foregoing traditional uninterruptible power supply (UPS) and power distribution units (PDUs) by adding a 12-volt battery to each server power supply, reports Data Center Knowledge.
The Facebook facility may have a lower carbon impact than other data centers reliant on an energy mix featuring coal due to its location near Duke Energy’s Cliffside Steam Station, which is readying a “clean coal” facility featuring lower emissions than traditional coal plants, reports Data Center Knowledge.
Facebook has published several case studies of energy-efficiency projects that have reduced the carbon impact of the company’s data centers, according to the article.
At a recent panel session, Facebook’s director of data center engineering, shared tips on how the company has improved energy efficiency and cut costs at its data centers.
Facebook says it is currently building one of the most energy-efficient data centers to date in Prineville, Oregon. However, Greenpeace started a campaign in February to get Facebook to power the data center with renewable energy instead of coal.
Facebook signed a deal to source its energy from PacificCorp, which uses 83 percent coal in its energy mix, according to the Associated Press, reported Reuters, in September. But PacifiCorp said the number is 58 percent with the remainder from natural gas (20 percent), hydro (10 percent) and renewable energy (10 percent).
Greenpeace also said that Facebook plans to double the size of its data center, which translates into twice the energy use and twice the coal.
The new Facebook site in Forest City is served by Duke Energy, which has an energy mix similar to that in Prineville, reports Data Center Knowledge. In 2009, Duke Energy generated 54.7 percent of its power from coal, 27 percent from nuclear power plants, 12 percent from wind and hydro-electric power, and 6.6 percent from natural gas, according to the article. The utility expects its mix of renewables to improve when it adds additional wind power generation.
But Greenpeace is not happy. “Facebook has again chosen a location that will increase demand for dirty energy,” said Greenpeace energy campaigner Gary Cook in a blog post. “Good corporate citizenship involves more than setting up a webpage dedicated to green issues, or becoming members of green clubs, just as energy efficiency is only the first step to managing your environmental footprint.”
The Greenpeace statement is in reference to the recent launch of Facebook’s new “green” page that details what the company is doing in the environmental space, and its recent partnerships with the Alliance to Save Energy and the Digital Energy Solutions Campaign (DESC).
Cook said Facebook missed an opportunity to follow the lead of Yahoo, which has built hydro-powered data centers in Quincy, Washington and Lockport, N.Y., reports Data Center Knowledge.
Facebook says the North Carolina data center will use many of the techniques used to conserve power at its Prineville site. These could include the use of evaporative cooling instead of a chiller system, re-using excess heat expelled by servers to heat office space in the building, and foregoing traditional uninterruptible power supply (UPS) and power distribution units (PDUs) by adding a 12-volt battery to each server power supply, reports Data Center Knowledge.
The Facebook facility may have a lower carbon impact than other data centers reliant on an energy mix featuring coal due to its location near Duke Energy’s Cliffside Steam Station, which is readying a “clean coal” facility featuring lower emissions than traditional coal plants, reports Data Center Knowledge.
How the dirt below our feet can save us from extinction
The Biochar Solution: Carbon Farming and Climate Change
Albert Bates
Reading like a detective story and marked by impressive scholarship, Albert Bates' latest book has placed The Biochar Solution squarely in the center of the global crisis. -Peter Bane Permaculture Activist
Conventional agriculture destroys our soils, pollutes our water and is a major contributor to climate change. What if our agricultural practices could stabilize, or even reverse these trends?
The Biochar Solution explores the dual function of biochar as a carbon-negative energy source and a potent soil-builder. Created by burning biomass in the absence of oxygen, this material has the unique ability to hold carbon back from the atmosphere while simultaneously enhancing soil fertility. Author Albert Bates traces the evolution of this extraordinary substance from the ancient black soils of the Amazon to its reappearance as a modern carbon sequestration strategy.
Combining practical techniques for the production and use of biochar with an overview of the development and future of carbon farming, The Biochar Solution describes how a new agricultural revolution can reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to below zero while increasing world food reserves and creating energy from biomass wastes. Biochar and carbon farming can:
Reduce fossil fuels inputs into our food system
Bring new life to desert landscapes
Filter and purify drinking water
Help build carbon-negative homes, communities and nations.
Biochar is not without dangers if unregulated, and it is not a panacea, but if it fulfills its promise of taking us back from the brink of irreversible climate change, it may well be the most important discovery in human history.
Bates has woven together a highly engaging interdisciplinary answer to climate change ... a lively page-turner that blends clear-headed analysis with nuts-and-bolts advice ... enough danger to wake us up, but enough opportunity to emerge feeling hopeful. - Tracy L. Barnett, The Esperanza Project
Albert Bates
Reading like a detective story and marked by impressive scholarship, Albert Bates' latest book has placed The Biochar Solution squarely in the center of the global crisis. -Peter Bane Permaculture Activist
Conventional agriculture destroys our soils, pollutes our water and is a major contributor to climate change. What if our agricultural practices could stabilize, or even reverse these trends?
The Biochar Solution explores the dual function of biochar as a carbon-negative energy source and a potent soil-builder. Created by burning biomass in the absence of oxygen, this material has the unique ability to hold carbon back from the atmosphere while simultaneously enhancing soil fertility. Author Albert Bates traces the evolution of this extraordinary substance from the ancient black soils of the Amazon to its reappearance as a modern carbon sequestration strategy.
Combining practical techniques for the production and use of biochar with an overview of the development and future of carbon farming, The Biochar Solution describes how a new agricultural revolution can reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to below zero while increasing world food reserves and creating energy from biomass wastes. Biochar and carbon farming can:
Reduce fossil fuels inputs into our food system
Bring new life to desert landscapes
Filter and purify drinking water
Help build carbon-negative homes, communities and nations.
Biochar is not without dangers if unregulated, and it is not a panacea, but if it fulfills its promise of taking us back from the brink of irreversible climate change, it may well be the most important discovery in human history.
Bates has woven together a highly engaging interdisciplinary answer to climate change ... a lively page-turner that blends clear-headed analysis with nuts-and-bolts advice ... enough danger to wake us up, but enough opportunity to emerge feeling hopeful. - Tracy L. Barnett, The Esperanza Project
Sunday, November 14, 2010
India pioneers global plan to green economy It will ensure that countries take into account the services provided by their ecosystems in economic planning
India will be one of the two countries to pioneer "a global partnership that will fundamentally change the way governments value their ecosystems", World Bank President Robert B Zoellick announced here on Thursday.
"We are here to do something that none has done before," Zoellick declared at a press conference on the sidelines of the October 18-29 UN biodiversity summit. That something is to ensure that countries take into account the services provided by their ecosystems — the value of the water stored underground because a forest allows more water to seep in, for example.
"This is a concept now widely accepted," Zoellick said. "Now we have to take the valuations provided by projects like TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) to Ministries of Finance and government economic agencies around the world."
If this is actually done, it may change the very classification of rich and poor countries. Zoellick said a recent study has shown ecosystems provide services worth US $44 trillion, of which US $29 trillion are in countries now classified as "developing".
"Our new partnership is to mainstream natural resources accounting into economic planning, starting with Colombia, India and then Mexico," Zoellick said. "We can overcome poverty only when we take ecosystem values into account."
Addressing the press conference with Zoellick, India's Environment Ministry Secretary Vijai Sharma said: "This will plug deficiencies in traditional accounting systems. India's national biodiversity action plan has already incorporated some of these concepts.
"In our country, we are moving towards a rights-based system of governance, as shown by the Forest Rights Act. Ninety per cent of our projects under the National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme are for rejuvenation of natural resources. Apart from environment, there are the questions of health and safety we must look into. We have to build in all these angles and this partnership will help us do that."
UN Environment Programme Chief Achim Steiner said: "The link between economic policy, natural capital and human wellbeing is being increasingly understood. The idea of this project is to make the invisible, visible, and to ensure that we have accounted for the economy of the poor."
"We are here to do something that none has done before," Zoellick declared at a press conference on the sidelines of the October 18-29 UN biodiversity summit. That something is to ensure that countries take into account the services provided by their ecosystems — the value of the water stored underground because a forest allows more water to seep in, for example.
"This is a concept now widely accepted," Zoellick said. "Now we have to take the valuations provided by projects like TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) to Ministries of Finance and government economic agencies around the world."
If this is actually done, it may change the very classification of rich and poor countries. Zoellick said a recent study has shown ecosystems provide services worth US $44 trillion, of which US $29 trillion are in countries now classified as "developing".
"Our new partnership is to mainstream natural resources accounting into economic planning, starting with Colombia, India and then Mexico," Zoellick said. "We can overcome poverty only when we take ecosystem values into account."
Addressing the press conference with Zoellick, India's Environment Ministry Secretary Vijai Sharma said: "This will plug deficiencies in traditional accounting systems. India's national biodiversity action plan has already incorporated some of these concepts.
"In our country, we are moving towards a rights-based system of governance, as shown by the Forest Rights Act. Ninety per cent of our projects under the National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme are for rejuvenation of natural resources. Apart from environment, there are the questions of health and safety we must look into. We have to build in all these angles and this partnership will help us do that."
UN Environment Programme Chief Achim Steiner said: "The link between economic policy, natural capital and human wellbeing is being increasingly understood. The idea of this project is to make the invisible, visible, and to ensure that we have accounted for the economy of the poor."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)