World's Dirtiest Cities

Check out the photos and text at Popsci.com. I've personally been to two of the top ten. What's your score?

Interfaith Power and Light is a religious response to global warming with chapters in 26 states and Greater Washington, D.C. Find a link to your local chapter at http://www.theregenerationproject.org/State.Check out the National IPL Blog.

Find discounts on energy saving products at http://www.shopipl.org/

LED Lights, Bargain or Ripoff?

Salon's Enviro-expert Pablo takes on LED lights. Read an excerpt below:

A 7W LED can be compared to a 10W CFL, which also emits 500 lumens. The closest incandescent bulb that I could find was a 460-lumen or 40W bulb. The next thing is to compare the efficacy of the bulbs. This is done using the measure of lumens per watt, or light emitted per electricity input. The incandescent bulb has an efficacy of 12 lumens/watt while the CFL has an efficacy of 50 lumens/watt, only to be outdone by the LED at 71 lumens/watt. So it's clear that LEDs are by far more efficient than incandescent bulbs. But does this justify forgoing CFLs in favor of LEDs? At over $50 per bulb, the high upfront cost will give everyone pause. But is the long lifetime or the high efficiency worth the cost?
A 10W CFL, available online for $6.90, has an expected median lifetime of 10,000 hours. While this is about 10 times longer than the life expectancy of an incandescent bulb, it is only one-fifth the expected life of the LED. So LEDs have the potential of cutting down on ladder time by a factor of 50 over incandescent bulbs! At about 25 cents apiece, the incandescent has by far the lowest upfront cost, which is why many people still use them. If we normalize the cost of all the bulbs over a 50,000-hour period, the incandescent bulbs cost $12.50, while CFL bulbs cost $34.50, and the LED bulb costs $59.95. But, as you may already know, the upfront cost of a bulb is by far the cheapest part. It's the electricity required to operate the bulb that adds up.
Over a period of 50,000 hours, a 40W incandescent bulb will use 2,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh). At 15 cents per kWh, this will put $300 in the pocket of your local utility, bringing the total cost of the incandescent bulb, over 50,000 hours, up to $312.50. The CFL bulb only uses 500kWh over the same time period, or $75, totaling $109.50. Finally, the LED bulb will use 350kWh for $52.50, with a total cost of $112.45. So, in this example, the LED light does cost a few dollars more but the difference is negligible. Think of the time you will save by not running to the store to buy bulbs and climbing the ladder to change them.



As for their disposal, LED lights, unlike CFLs, contain no mercury and many of them are compliant with the European Union's Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive. Like CFLs they do contain electronic circuits, which are hard to separate back into individual materials for recycling. But with a life span of 50,000 hours, the relative amount of waste created will be quite minimal.
There are still some limitations to LEDs. The best idea is to figure out your lighting needs and speak with a lighting professional at a local lighting store or at LED Waves to find the solution for you. Be sure to tell them if you are looking for area lighting or spot lighting, bright light or colored light, indoor or outdoor, on/off or dimmable. There are a growing number of options in the LED bulb market and you should be able to find the right bulbs for you. An exciting lighting innovation that comes with the commercialization of LED lighting is the versatility of LEDs in creating changes in brightness and color using a computer controller. It's now possible to wake up to a simulated sunrise or to set the mood for a romantic dinner at the touch of a button.
Interfaith Power and Light is a religious response to global warming with chapters in 26 states and Greater Washington, D.C. Find a link to your local chapter at http://www.theregenerationproject.org/State.Check out the National IPL Blog.Find discounts on energy saving products at http://www.shopipl.org/

Pop Wars: Cans vs. Bottles

What is better for the environment, soft drinks in bottles or cans? Salon has the facts in this article (excerpt below):

The amount of petroleum used in making the 50-gram (g) and 2-liter bottle is around 325 g, and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions from its manufacture are around 825 g. An aluminum can made from virgin materials results in the emissions of 280 g of carbon dioxide. Does this mean that the can is better? Well, keep in mind that the bottle holds more beverage, so we need to take that into account. You would need to buy 5.6 cans, almost a full six-pack, to equal the volume of the bottle. The 5.6 cans would be responsible for 1,568 g of carbon dioxide emissions. So it looks like the 2-liter bottle results in about half of the greenhouse gas emissions of the equivalent amount of cans. Is this the end of the story? What about transportation emissions?
Let's assume that both beverage containers are filled in the same facility and shipped to the store with the same truck. The bottle weighs 2.05 kg when full (2 liters plus 50 g) and the 5.6 cans weigh 2.084 kg (2 liters plus 84 g). This means that the cans require slightly more fuel to transport than the bottles. That's two strikes against cans. How about a third strike? Soda bottles often find a second life in my favorite winter garments, as some clothing brands manufacture fleece in part from recycled plastic, which is melted into pellets and extruded into fine fibers. Try doing that with aluminum.

Interfaith Power and Light is a religious response to global warming with chapters in 25 states and Greater Washington, D.C. Find a link to your local chapter at http://www.theregenerationproject.org/State.

Find discounts on energy saving products at http://www.shopipl.org/

Tribe Gets Voice

According to an AP article,

The Environmental Protection Agency has given St. Regis Mohawks a voice in enforcing federal air quality rules on the tribe's reservation in northern New York, following a five-year review.
The tribe's recognition under the federal Clean Air Act means New York state is now obligated to consider tribal comments on any project that might affect reservation residents.
Officials had done so earlier as a courtesy, said Ken Jock, St. Regis Mohawks' environmental division director.
Jock said the pollution from industrial neighbors drifts onto vegetation consumed by livestock on the St. Regis Indian Reservation along the Canadian border, causing health problems for both animals and humans.
''This may make someone a little bit less inclined to want to put polluting businesses in the area,'' said Gavin Lau, an environmental scientist with EPA's air program branch.
The Mohegan tribe in Connecticut has also applied for recognition under the Clean Air Act, as has an Arizona-based tribe, said EPA spokesman Elias Rodriguez.

Interfaith Power and Light is a religious response to global warming with chapters in 25 states and Greater Washington, D.C. Find a link to your local chapter at http://www.theregenerationproject.org/State.htmEnjoy discounts on energy saving products at http://www.shopipl.org/

China Breaks Pollution Records

The New York Times posts yet another extensive and disturbing article about China's out of control pollution problem. Read an excerpt below:

BEIJING, Aug. 25 — No country in history has emerged as a major industrial power without creating a legacy of environmental damage that can take decades and big dollops of public wealth to undo.
But just as the speed and scale of China’s rise as an economic power have no clear parallel in history, so its pollution problem has shattered all precedents. Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party. And it is not clear that China can rein in its own economic juggernaut.
Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health says. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water.
Chinese cities often seem wrapped in a toxic gray shroud. Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union. Beijing is frantically searching for a magic formula, a meteorological deus ex machina, to clear its skies for the 2008 Olympics.
Environmental woes that might be considered catastrophic in some countries can seem commonplace in China: industrial cities where people rarely see the sun; children killed or sickened by lead poisoning or other types of local pollution; a coastline so swamped by algal red tides that large sections of the ocean no longer sustain marine life.
China is choking on its own success. The economy is on a historic run, posting a succession of double-digit growth rates. But the growth derives, now more than at any time in the recent past, from a staggering expansion of heavy industry and urbanization that requires colossal inputs of energy, almost all from coal, the most readily available, and dirtiest, source.
“It is a very awkward situation for the country because our greatest achievement is also our biggest burden,” says Wang Jinnan, one of China’s leading environmental researchers. “There is pressure for change, but many people refuse to accept that we need a new approach so soon.”
China’s problem has become the world’s problem. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides spewed by China’s coal-fired power plants fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo. Much of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates in China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research.
More pressing still, China has entered the most robust stage of its industrial revolution, even as much of the outside world has become preoccupied with global warming.
Experts once thought China might overtake the United States as the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gases by 2010, possibly later. Now, the International Energy Agency has said China could become the emissions leader by the end of this year, and the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency said China had already passed the milestone.
For the Communist Party, the political calculus is daunting. Reining in economic growth to alleviate pollution may seem logical, but the country’s authoritarian system is addicted to fast growth. Delivering prosperity placates the public, provides spoils for well-connected officials and forestalls demands for political change. A major slowdown could incite social unrest, alienate business interests and threaten the party’s rule.
But pollution poses its own threat. Officials blame fetid air and water for thousands of episodes of social unrest. Health care costs have climbed sharply. Severe water shortages could turn more farmland into desert. And the unconstrained expansion of energy-intensive industries creates greater dependence on imported oil and dirty coal, meaning that environmental problems get harder and more expensive to address the longer they are unresolved.
China’s leaders recognize that they must change course. They are vowing to overhaul the growth-first philosophy of the Deng Xiaoping era and embrace a new model that allows for steady growth while protecting the environment. In his equivalent of a State of the Union address this year, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao made 48 references to “environment,” “pollution” or “environmental protection.”
The government has numerical targets for reducing emissions and conserving energy. Export subsidies for polluting industries have been phased out. Different campaigns have been started to close illegal coal mines and shutter some heavily polluting factories. Major initiatives are under way to develop clean energy sources like solar and wind power. And environmental regulation in Beijing, Shanghai and other leading cities has been tightened ahead of the 2008 Olympics.

Printers Cause Indoor Pollution

According to an article in PC world, commonly used laser printers could lead to serious health risks from indoor pollution.

Some home and office laser printers pose serious health risks and may spew out as much particulate matter as a cigarette smoker inhales, an Australian air quality researcher said Tuesday.
The study, appeared today in the online edition of the American Chemical Society's Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) journal, measured particulate output of 62 laser printers, including models from name brands such as Canon, Hewlett-Packard and Ricoh. Particle emissions, believed to be toner -- the finely-ground powder used to form images and characters on paper -- were measured in an open office floor plan, then ranked.
Specific printer results are listed in the published study.
What They Found
Lidia Morawska and colleagues at the Queensland University of Technology, classified 17 of the 62 printers, or 27 percent, as "high particle emitters"; one of the 17 pumped out particulates at a rate comparable with emissions from cigarette smoking, the study said.
Morawska called the emissions "a significant health threat" because of the particles' small size, which makes them easy to inhale and easily lodged in the deepest and smallest passageways of the lungs. The effects, she said, can range from simple irritation to much more serious illnesses, including cardiovascular problems or cancer. "Even very small concentrations can be related to health hazards," said Morawska. "Where the concentrations are significantly elevated means there is potentially a considerable hazard."
Two printers released medium levels of particulates, six issued low levels, and 37 -- or about 60 percent of those tested -- released no particles at all. HP, which is one of the world's leading printer sellers, dominated both the list of high-level emitting and non-emitting printers.
HP's Response
When contacted by PC World, the company issued this statement: "HP is currently reviewing the Queensland University of Technology research on particle emission characteristics of office printers. Vigorous tests under standardized operating conditions are an integral part of HP's research and development and its strict quality control procedures."
"As part of these quality controls, HP assesses its LaserJet printing systems, original HP print cartridges and papers for dust release and possible material emissions to ensure compliance with applicable international health and safety requirements."
The research also found that office particulate levels increased fivefold during work hours because of laser printers. Generally, more particles were emitted when the printer was using a new toner cartridge, and when printing graphics or photographs that require larger amounts of toner than, say, text.
Morawska recommended that people make sure rooms at work and home with laser printers are well ventilated.

Interfaith Power and Light is a religious response to global warming with chapters in 22 states and Greater Washington, D.C. Find a link to your local chapter at http://www.theregenerationproject.org/State.htm

Connecticut School Bus Exhausts Get Cleaner

A notice from Clean Water Action:

Recently the Connecticut General Assembly approved a state budget and budget implementation bill which included $10 million for school bus retrofits. The budget now goes to the governor who is expected to sign it.The funding, spread out over 2 years, will cover the full cost of purchasing and installing pollution control devices for the approximately 3,400 school buses in the state that are able to be retrofit and aren't scheduled to be immediately replaced. Pollution controls will keep exhaust out of the cabin and reduce tailpipe pollution up to 85%.

IREJN is Connecticut's Interfaith Power and Light. Visit us at http://www.irejn.org/.

Dirty Ten

With all this talk about climate change, it can be easy to overlook the impact of old-fashioned smog. The American Lung Association aims to curb that tendency with their release of the Top Ten cities for polluted air. Here they are, according to the AP:

The association found that the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area had the worst air based on 2003 through 2005 figures.
The Pittsburgh area was ranked as the nation's second most polluted metropolitan area followed by Bakersfield, Calif., Birmingham, Ala., Detroit and Cleveland. Visalia, Calif., Cincinnati, Indianapolis and St. Louis rounded out the top 10.
The news wasn't all bad for Los Angeles. Despite the dubious distinction, the number of days residents breathed the nation's worst ozone levels was fewer than in previous years.

According to Marketwatch, while smog is down overall, soot is on the rise, especially on the East Coast of the US:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Pollution levels in the United States are getting both better and worse, according to an annual report tracking the nation's air quality prepared Tuesday by the American Lung Association.
The upside is that smog levels declined nationwide between 2003 and 2005, aided by the appearance of more pollution controls on smokestacks, according to the report, called "State of the Air: 2007."
The bad news is that the number of places in the United States reporting unhealthy levels of soot grew over the same period, the report found. Soot describes the tiny particles of pollution generated by burning fossil fuels.
This "ominous trend," found particularly in the Eastern states., is worrisome because soot pollution can increase hospital visits for heart and asthma problems, the American Lung Association said.
The honors for the cleanest cities and metropolitan areas went to the Fargo-Wahpeton area spanning North Dakota and Minnesota; Rapid City, S.D.; and Salinas, Calif. These were the only locations to make all three lists for lowest levels of short-term soot, long-term soot and smog levels.

IREJN is Connecticut's Interfaith Power and Light. Visit us at www.irejn.org.

Clean Power in China

China has a reputation as the world's fastest growing polluter, but that's not the whole story, according to an article in the New York Times.

Physicist Shi Zhengrong spent the 1990s in an Australian lab studying solar power, a field he picked by chance. He expected to devote his life to science.
Still, Shi saw signs of a blossoming industry as Germany, Japan and other countries invested in cleaner power. Excited by a trip home that showed him China's rapid development, he startled friends by abruptly moving his wife and two Australian-born sons to his homeland in 2001 to launch a solar equipment company.
Four years later, Shi's confidence paid off when his Suntech Power Holdings Ltd. went public on the New York Stock Exchange and investors snapped up shares, turning him into a billionaire. Last year, Shi ranked No. 7 on the Forbes magazine list of China's richest tycoons, with a $1.4 billion fortune.
Today, he has traded his research smock for blue business suits, a CEO's 63rd-floor corner office and a role advising the Chinese government on renewable energy policy.
''We believed the share price would go up, but not so quickly,'' said Shi, a 43-year-old with a boyish face, chuckling at what he says was a rise marked by lucky breaks and timing. ''I never thought I would be a rich guy.''
Shi is the leader of an emerging group of Chinese entrepreneurs who are striking it rich by meeting fast-growing demand in China and abroad for cleaner power.
They are getting a boost from China's efforts to curb environmental damage after two decades of breakneck growth that have left it with some of the world's most badly polluted air and water. Chinese leaders also are promoting renewable energy in hopes of reducing mounting dependence on imported oil, which they see as a strategic weakness.

IREJN is Connecticut's Interfaith Power and Light. Visit us at www.irejn.org.