Hybrid Buses

This may not be news to some people, but the other day I was going on a walk and I was surprised to see a hybrid bus. I had seen the blue/green buses around town before but I'd never taken the time to read the side. They are hybrids, running on a diesel/electrical blend the buses are surprisingly fuel efficient and environmentally friendly (at least in comparison to their non-hybrid counterparts). Picture below:

I had never heard of a hybrid bus before, but I think it is a fabulous idea. Not only does it mix the standard fuel efficiency of public transportation with low cost, it also adds in the extra bonus of lower emissions and less gas consumption. According to the website:

• The battery is located on the top of the vehicle, towards the back, and can generate enough power to completely sustain the bus at speeds around 10 miles per hour and lower. This may seem like a small contribution, but buses make a lot of slow stops and starts, and that is when this battery comes into play.
• The braking system is a fairly new technology called, "regenerative breaking" where the traction is actually harnessed to help recharge the battery and helps the bus slow down much quicker than the leading traditional diesel-only bus.
• The bus is suspected to save over 35 thousand gallons of fuel over its 12 year life expectancy.
• Over the 12 years, the bus is expected to emit 352 tons less carbon dioxide. 

Currently in Spokane, WA there are nine hybrid buses. The first bus was introduced in October of 2007 and the Spokane Transit Authority is looking to go even greener in the future. 

And on a broader scale, it turns out that green buses have been in use all around the nation since the early 2000s. With almost 400 of them delivered to New York, New York in 2005 and 214 to Seattle, Washington. Across the nation, dozens of cities have turned to cleaner energy for their public transportation. 

And its a good thing too, because according to the EESI, 60% of the transit trips taken in the US every year are by bus, 84% of which are powered by diesel engines. The EESI website also says that the buses can emit up to 75% less greenhouse gases when used effectively, and have the lowest carbon dioxide emission rating of all vehicles in its class. As an added bonus, the buses also have a much smoother acceleration, have a much quieter engine, and an extended break life.

Any way you look at it, hybrid buses are a great idea and an excellent option for public transportation. They have been proven to have lower emission rates, fuel consumptions, and even cost over some bus models. I hope that this technology will catch on even more, and that within a few years there are no non-hybrid buses. Here's to a greener future...

- Amber 

Hiking

This past weekend, Morgan and I went for a hike up Mt. Spokane. Although the temperatures were close to freezing, and the trails were covered with snow and ice- we had a lot of fun. So, for today's article I decided that I will share some of my pictures of the great out of doors, as opposed to talking about current news in the environmental community. Because why are we rallying for better emission standards and smaller carbon footprints? To protect the Earth, to protect nature, and to protect future generations. That is why it is so important to get outside and enjoy nature. Not only does going on hikes and walks outside give you a chance to take in the world around you, but it is also good for your health; and may help promote the protection of wildlife and national parks so that you can continue these activities!

Here we are, Amber on the Left and Morgan on the Right.

As I said, the hike was a lot of fun and a great way to spend a weekend. Mt. Spokane is a fairly short distance away from our house, so in less than an hour we were out the door and on the mountain. We hiking 2 miles each direction, and weather permitting we would have gone even farther. We are already chomping at the bit for all of the snow and ice to melt so that we can go on more hiking and camping trips. National parks and wildlife reserves are there for a reason, and you should get out and enjoy them! 

- Amber

This Week, Summarized

Yes, I know that I forgot to write my article on the correct day again. It is obvious that I have failed the 'post your articles' on time challenge, but I think that the paper towel challenge went very well. I did quite a bit of research on paper towels and the cloth alternate, and shared some of that information with you. Amber and I used 5 paper towels this week, which is a lot less than what is normal for me. We have cloth rags in our kitchen that before now, I never really used. This week, I wiped up more messes with the cloth rags than with paper towels. The only times that I actually used paper towels was to clean up beans in the microwave, and when making sandwiches. I will continue to reduce the number of paper towels that I use, and try to wean myself off of using paper towels entirely.

Also this week, we are finishing off our one month vegetarian challenge. I cannot believe that it has actually been an entire month without meat! The change was surprisingly easy and I didn't face any difficulties. There has been no significant change in the vitamins that I have been getting, so I do not feel any different health-wise, than I did before the challenge. I do feel that not eating meat is a very easy thing to do, and very healthy as well. I would encourage anyone to try a month off meat to see how they feel about it. At the beginning of the month, I was very intimidated about having a while 30 days with no meat. I thought that it would stretch on forever. Now, I am actually kind of sad that the month is over. I am not sure yet whether or not I will become a full time vegetarian or not. Knowing what I know now about how bad meat is for our planet, I think that I would feel bad to eat it when there is tofu and other options out there.

And so, I think that I will have those fish sticks that Amber has been craving, and I am kind of intimidated to eat a steak or hamburger after so long. I don't that meat has the same appeal as it did when I started the challenge. Not only because I will bad about the environmental aspects, but also because of the health aspects. And, the smell and texture of meat are not as appealing as they used to be. I know that I will not eat meat nearly as often; I will continue to experiment with and eat tofu, I will eat vegi-burgers instead of hamburger ones, etc.

The tofu meals, and favorite vegetarian meals of this month would be:

• Our first official tofu meal - tofudogs, fried tofu, stuffed tofu bell peppers, creamed spinach and curry burritos, vegetarian chili and pastas, pumpkin ravioli, rotini pasta with beans, lots of quesadillas, and tons of delicious fresh fruit.

The one thing that I must point out about this whole month that is probably the funniest, is that not once did we have a salad! I used to eat salad quite frequently, but over this whole month I didn't eat any!

Well, the week is over, and so is the month. We are now officially 1/12 of the way done through our big one year challenge, and I am feeling pretty good about it. Amber and I have learned a lot about how we can make a difference already, and are excited to learn more. I feel really good to know that I have already reduced my carbon footprint so much. It is one thing to care about the environment, and it is another thing to actually do something about it. We are doing something about it, and it feels great. 

I look forward to telling you about our first experiences with meat and how my tastes have changed - I know that I am curious. 

-Morgan

Vegetarians No More

As our month comes to a close on the eve of tonight: Sunday, February 21, Morgan and I are no longer required to remain vegetarian under the parameters of our challenge. It is hard to believe that it has already been one month... and just to take a look back at the progress we've made, here are some statistics regarding our ever shrinking carbon footprint:

According to the New York Times, the average American eats roughly 200 pounds of meat in a year, or roughly 0.55 pounds per day. So, by Morgan and I (two people) abstaining from meat for one month (30 days), we saved around 33 pounds of meat.

Just to put that in perspective for you, the production of that meat would have emitted enough greenhouse gases to power an SUV for 1,320 miles. And according to Goveg.com, each pound of meat requires 5000 gallons of water to produce; meaning that Morgan and I saved 165,000 gallons of water in only one month's time. The equivalent of not showering for 33 years!

As far as our shortened showers go, federal regulations dictate that a new shower head not use more than 2.5 gallons of water per minute. Assuming that we have a new shower head (which I believe we do), that our showers before this month were around 15 minutes in length, and that now our average shower time is more in the realm of 5-10 minutes, that means in only one month we saved, between the two of us, about 1,200 gallons of water!

I'm not sure how to calculate our cut backs based on reduced use of electricity, turning off the tap while brushing our teeth, or hand-washing dishes, but I'm sure that the combined reduction is great in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and water usage. One thing is for certain, we are making great progress in our new green lifestyle, and we have decided to continue vegetarianism as a trend, allowing leeway for the occasional family dinner.

When we first began our vegetarian challenge one month ago, I thought I would have some difficulties abstaining from meat. But to be honest with you, I didn't think twice about meat (with the exception of those fish sticks). Going vegetarian was easy, inexpensive, and delicious. It was a chance for me to reduce my carbon footprint, do my part for the planet, develop a healthier lifestyle, and improve my culinary skills. I can only hope that after reading an honest account of how easy it is to become vegetarian, that you feel a little inspired to try it yourself. I would not ask anybody to give up meat entirely, but even not eating meat for one day a week saves 0.55 pounds of meat and 2,750 gallons of water.

Remember that you can always make a difference, and that reducing your carbon footprint is not as daunting a task as it sounds. Good luck with your own challenges.

- Amber

The Copenhagen Accord

Sorry I didn't post yesterday. After Morgan posted last night, the internet went down! ...But here is the article I was going to have up for yesterday:


In 2007, a leading Scandinavian had the brain child that became the Copenhagen Climate Council. The purpose of the council is to increase awareness, and stress the importance of the UN Climate Summit (COP15); and is comprised of 30 global climate leaders, from scientists to policy makers and business leaders. You could say, in layman's terms, that the council met as a practice run for COP15 in order to practice their arguments and better prepare for the upcoming UN meeting.

After the Copenhagen Climate Council conference, the leaders went to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference where they fought for stricter emission standards, and managed to pass the Copenhagen Accord, although by no means unanimously. The key idea of the Accord was to keep global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius, and this proposal was not taken lightly. Many countries remain very resistant towards climate regulations, but here are some of the promises that other large nations made:

• Australia: cut carbon emissions by 15 to 25% by 2020
• Canada: cut carbon emissions by 20% by 2020
• China: cut CO2 emissions by 40-45% by 2020
• European Union: cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020 (with Germany agreeing to reduce emissions by 40%)
• Mexico: reduce emissions by 50% by 2050
• Russia: reduce emissions by 10-15% by 2020, or 20-25% based on the Kyoto Protocol
• United States: cut emissions by 17% by the year 2020

As you can see from some of the other major nations pledges, the United States is certainly falling behind. Even large, rapidly industrializing nations such as China have pledged more than us. The only country that would like to do less than the United States is Russia, and even they agreed to up their efforts if a long term global effort is agreed upon. I know that we are making a definite step in the right direction by even supporting the Copenhagen Accord in this country, but it is obvious by other nations efforts that we could do so much more. That is all for day- I have some hiking to do. (I posted some excerpts form the actual treaty below).

- Amber

Excerpts from the Copenhagen Treaty Below:

1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change. We recognize the critical impacts of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects and stress the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation programme including international support.

3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy- wide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.

12. We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015, including in light of the Conventionís ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

[thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COP15 for the information on the COP15 council meeting, and to http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf for the actual Copenhagen Accord text].

Paper towels & Fish

I have unfortunately already failed one challenge this week, and that is the posting articles on time challenge. This article is a day late unfortunately. I got caught up in watching old Bones reruns. But, back on track... I have been able to keep up with the second challenge, and that is the paper towel challenge. I promised earlier in the week that I would write about the environmental impact of paper towels, and why we should all switch to rags instead. Here it goes:

Did you know that over 90% of American families use paper towels instead of rags (courtesy of Ezine). In the United States alone, we produce 3000 tons of paper towel waste that goes directly to our land fills every day. That is a lot of waste. But since paper towels are being used to clean up spills, they cannot be recycled. The best way to help our environment is to switch to cloth rags that you can wash in the dishwasher or rinse out in the sink, but if you do not feel comfortable giving up the luxury of disposables, you can use paper towels made from recycled paper.

Recycled paper towels can save a lot of trees from being cut down, and that in turn saves a lot of water and pollution from having to make new paper products. They are definitely a more eco-friendly way to go. But, the difference between throwing out a recycled paper towel and throwing out a regular paper towel is not that great.

The problem with paper towels, like many of the other products that fill our dumps, is that they are so easy and cheap to get. You can buy 12 rolls at one time for a ridiculously low price from a store like Safeway. And if people don't have to worry about running out, they can use them with abandon. I'll give you an example, one that we all have done: Let's say that you knock over a glass of water. You are having a snack and have a paper towel with you. You immediately right the glass and wipe up some of the water with your paper towel, but it doesn't really put a dent in the amount of water still left of the table. And so, you run to your kitchen and grab an armful of paper towels. You promptly soak up the mess and are left with about 20 half-used sheets of paper towels. That is a huge amount of waste! What you should have done, is find the nearest towel and soaked up the water with that. Now, you haven't wasted any paper, and can just pop your towel in with your next wash or just let it dry out. See the difference, and it's easy too!

All that I am trying to show you is that the switch from disposable paper that you have to buy at the store every week and constantly replace in your kitchen can easily be switched with a couple of cheap rags that you can just rinse in the sink or stick in the wash. When you think about it, having reusable towels is a lot easier.

And now, jumping to an entirely different topic, because the New York Times was not gracious enough to have an article on paper towels today, I give you a summary on dams and fish. Enjoy:

Today's New York Times article, written by William Yardley, is a piece called Pacts Signed to Help River and Salmon. According to Yardley's article, there has been a huge leap made for salmon and rivers today. Pacts have been signed to remove four dams that feed rivers into Northern California and Oregon from the Klamath River. These four dams along the river made hydroelectric power, but not without a cost - a dramatic loss of salmon populations. What has happened is, that the dams are messing with the irrigation systems that allow smaller rivers and streams that branch off of the Klamath. This is causing the salmon to not be able to sufficiently migrate upstream to spawn. Not only does this affect the salmon, but it also affects the Indians that use those streams to fish. In 2008, agreements were made that said that by 2020, the four dams would have to be removed. Just recently, these agreements were signed by the governors of California and Oregon, the head of the company in charge of the dams, leaders of Indian tribes, and various other important people who have been affected by these dams. Although removing these dams is a good thing, because protecting the natural habitats and lives of salmon is very important, is will cost over a billion dollars, and that clean energy source that powered over 700 homes will have to be found from somewhere else.

-Morgan

Nuclear Power?

This Tuesday, President Obama gave $8 billion in grants toward nuclear energy, intended to go toward to plants in Georgia. According to a recent New York Times Article, this isn't the first we've heard of Obama's nuclear energy. One theory that the article offers is that the president elect started endorsing nuclear power as a way to draw the Republican vote, but as the article also says "Mr. Obama should not be endorsing such a costly and potentially catastrophic energy alternative “as bait just to get talks started with pro-nuke senators.” 

Many of Obama's typically supportive environmental supporters are frustrated to the point of anger with his new endorsement. For the most part, President Obama has made little progress environmentally since he took office last year. And it is quite obvious, that nuclear power is NOT a step in the right direction. In this day and age, when nuclear power accounts for less than 20% of the United States' electrical power, we need to be looking towards the future and greener energy sources. Certainly not to nuclear power. Although nuclear power does emit significantly less CO2 into the environment than more traditional methods, can produce fairly large quantities of energy fairly quickly, and the technology is already out there... the list of cons definitely out weighs the pros. 

• First of all, once you create nuclear waste- you have to keep it, for literally tens of thousands of years. And it is highly dangerous, as it is by definition radioactive. 
• Second of all, in case of an accident, the repercussions could be astronomical. Do we really need another Chernobyl? 
• Also, nuclear power plants are a huge target for terrorism, because they are hugely explosive and unstable. If you are worried about national safety, relying on energy that can have hiroshima-esque consequences is not your best bet. 
• Additionally, the element Uranium gives the power to nuclear energy, and it is a rare resource. So, when we need more energy to supply dwindling amounts of our current main energy resource, is it really a good idea to turn to something that is both incredibly dangerous and expected to run out in the next 30 to 60 years? 
• And even if the United States were to turn to nuclear power, it would take 20 to 30 years and a lot of funds to build new plants- and by that time Uranium stores would already be so low it would be ridiculous to rely on them. 

So, obviously nuclear energy is not the way to go. Uranium is not a renewable resource, its supplies are dwindling, and the potential effects of an accident far out weigh the slightly lower carbon dioxide emission rates. What I am trying to get across here, is that it is completely ridiculous to be putting our time, efforts, and money into non-renewable energy sources. Come on Obama, nuclear energy? I am not one to criticize the presidents efforts, especially as he is doing something to help the environment, and is certainly much better, environmentally speaking, than the alternative... but we need greener options. Why not invest those $8 billion in wind, tidal, or solar power? We have the technology out there for those too! Here's to a hopefully brighter, greener future.

- Amber

 

[thanks to http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability for all of the information on nuclear energy].