Top Ten Ways To Be Green 
by Dee Stofko

 1. Unplug
 2. Use Less Water
 3. Switch To Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs
 4. Choose Products With Less Packaging
 5. Buy Organic and Local Foods
 6. Drive Less
 7. Plant a Tree
 8. Recycle More
 9. Switch to “Green” Power via Your Local Utility Company
10. Spread the Word

Carbon Emissions  
by Dee Stofko

Because of the consistent growth of carbon emissions, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased from the preindustrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm) to today’s 370 ppm. Since the atmosphere’s capacity to fix carbon is fairly constant, the earth is fixing a decreasing percentage of emissions. These in turn are responsible for trapping more of the earth’s heat causing temperatures to rise.

Three fourths of the carbon emissions from human activities are due to the combustion of fossil fuels; the rest is caused by changes in land use, principally deforestation. 

Four major sectors produce carbon emissions. Electricity generation is responsible for the largest share—42%. Transportation generates 24%, industrial processes 20% and residential and commercial uses produce the remaining 14%. 

What we can do? First and foremost, we can change our electric service to one that is “green friendly”—one that uses wind, solar and geothermal power. Secondly, we can use mass transit whenever possible and replace old appliances and vehicles with ones that emit less carbon dioxide. Thirdly, we can buy carbon offsets that use donations to mitigate the creation of CO2 by various means including planting trees. Lastly, we can urge our politicians to support the Kyoto Protocol, which commits industrial nations to reduce their emissions by at least 5% below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

See www.earth-policy.org

How Green is Your Candidate? 
by Dee Stofko
February 2008

In case you were wondering, I will attempt in this article to summarize the major candidates' views on the different facets of climate and energy issues. This information can be viewed at  http://www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html  The information on that chart is broken down into six major categories. They are: cap-and-trade programs; fuel-economy standards; renewable energy; biofuels; coal and nuclear energy. Cap-and-trade issues can best be summed up as “pollution credits”. This system rewards facilities that control air pollution and provides a means for those who cannot afford the latest air pollution technologies to buy some time. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are virtually neck-to-neck on this point. They both support a cap-and-trade. Republican candidates support nuclear power with Huckabee and McCain calling for its expansion.

On fuel-economy standards, both Clinton and Obama support raising standards for cars to 40 mpg by 2020. Clinton goes further and supports raising these standards to 55 mpg by 2030. John McCain supports raising standards, but has not named a specific target. Mike Huckabee supports raising standards to 35 mpg by 2020. On the renewable energy issue, Clinton and Obama call for getting 25% of US electricity from renewable sources by 2025. John McCain supports renewables, but has not offered a specific target. Mike Huckabee supports getting 15% of US electricity from renewable sources in addition to clean coal and nuclear power by the year 2020.

Regarding biofuels, Clinton and Obama are also identical on this issue. Both call for 60 billion gallons of biofuels to be produced in the US by 2030. The two Republican candidates support the increased use of biofuels, but do not call for a specific number of gallons to be produced in the US. John McCain opposes subsidies for ethanol. Clinton and Obama both support “clean coal” and coal-to-liquid fuels provided they emit 20% less carbon over their life cycle than conventional fuels. Mike Huckabee supports “clean coal” and coal-to-liquid fuels with no qualification. John McCain supports the use of coal for energy production and would like to find cleaner ways to use it. Lastly, Clinton does not want to emphasize nuclear energy as a power source unless waste storage problems are solved. Obama and all the Republican candidates support nuclear power with Huckabee and McCain calling for its expansion.

Carbon Offsets
by Dee Stofko

Recently I have become aware of some new environmental jargon—phrases such as “carbon footprint” and “carbon offsets”—and wondered just what they mean. After some internet research, I discovered that everyone has a carbon footprint and that it is “the measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of green house gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide.”¹ So we all impact the carbon emissions of the planet in some way—by our electricity and natural gas usage, and by our gasoline and airplane fuel, if we use air travel. 

“Carbon offsets enable individuals and businesses to reduce the CO₂ emissions they are responsible for by offsetting, reducing or displacing the CO₂ in another place, typically where it is more economical to do so.”² There are numerous calculators on the internet to help individuals determine their carbon footprint so they can first take steps to reduce it and subsequently offset what is left. 

I used the “An Inconvenient Truth Carbon Calculator” at www.climatecrisis.net/ takeaction/carboncalculator and discovered that my total personal impact is 5.65 tons per year. I also learned that this is smaller than average—probably because I use Green Mountain Energy which is 100% pollution-free electricity made from wind and water. At the Green Mountain website I discovered that this saves 1,700 pounds of CO2 per month or 10.2 tons per year. I divided that number by 4 because there are 4 individuals in my household and I came up with a personal savings of 2.55 tons per year. 

On the EcoBusinessLinks Environmental Directory site listed below, I discovered the cost of offsetting my individual carbon footprint. Native Energy, mentioned on the www.climatecrisis.net website, sells offsets at $13.20/ton for a total of $74.58 to offset my excess carbon emissions for an entire year. But some of the carbon offset businesses are significantly cheaper. The offsets on these pages are divided into project types which include methane, renewable energy, energy efficiency and reforestation projects. Isn’t it our duty to give back what we take from our environment? 

¹ www.carbonfootprint.com
² www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm

Hybrid Cars
by Dee Stofko
Mid-March 2008 

Have you ever thought about buying a hydrid car, but did not know where to start? I discovered www.hybridcars.com which has a wealth of information that can help you make the best decision. The editor of hybridcars.com is Bradley Berman who writes about the hybrid cars for BusinessWeek, the New York Times, and other publications. He is an impassioned advocate of hybrid vehicles.

"Available Now" and "Expected" in the near future hybrid compacts and sedans, SUVs and minivans, and trucks are listed on the site. Nine compacts and sedans are currently available with two more expected in 2009. Five SUVs and minivans are available now with seven more coming in the next few years. Currently, the only hybrid truck available is the Dodge Ram and it is only available to fleet buyers. The GMC Chevrolet Silverado will be available this year.

The most fascinating piece of information I discovered is the Chevy currently makes an electric car called the Chevy Volt. It comes with an innovative rechargeable electric drive system and range-extending power source. It allows the vehicle to run totally on electricity for short commutes while getting 150 miles per gallon on longer trips.

Another consideration is the federal income tax credit given to the purchaser of a new hybrid vehicle. The Mercury Mariner boasts a $3,000 credit (not a deduction) for the purchaser of that new vehicle.

Carbon Offsets (The Flip Side)
by Dee Stofko

A few months ago I wrote about carbon offsets and how they enable individuals and businesses to reduce their carbon footprint or the amount of CO₂ emissions they are responsible for. They do this by paying a nominal fee to a company who will offset or reduce CO₂ someplace else, usually where it costs less to do so. I have become aware of the controversy surrounding these offsets and would like to bring it to your attention.

The companies and individuals who champion carbon offsets claim they are primarily purchased by people who are “highly engaged on the issue of climate change.” The people who buy them are merely “actively seeking additional ways to minimize their footprint.” ¹ They allege that the carbon offsets aren’t the problem. The problem is the lack of awareness and concern on the part of a large percentage of the population. They deny the argument that carbon offsets are a version of “indulgences” not unlike that of the Catholic Church centuries ago whereby sinners neutralized their sins by paying the going rate for their particular transgression. 

Those against the use of carbon offsets do indeed see the similarity between offsets and indulgences. “Just as in the 15th and 16th centuries you could sleep with your sister and kill and lie without fear of eternal damnation, today you can live exactly as you please as long as you give your ducats to one of the companies selling indulgences.” ² 

The way I look at it, every little bit helps. If the offset projects are indeed new, effectual undertakings that neutralize CO2; they are helping combat the problem of carbon emissions. In that case, I’m all for them. If the people who are engaged in buying carbon offsets are doing so to assuage their guilt with no intention of changing their behavior, the offsets may still be effective, but less so. Buying carbon offsets plus trying other innovative ways to reduce your carbon footprint is the way to go. 

¹ http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/new-york-times
² www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/19/selling-indulgences/

Green Houses 
by Dee Stofko
Mid-April 2008 

Since Kathy Moser’s visit two weeks ago, I have been thinking about “green” houses. The pictures of the houses that were projected were full-blown environmental masterpieces. But with a little digging, I have discovered that there are many things a person can do to “green” their home that don’t involve buying a new one.

First of all, energy efficiency is the most obvious place to start. New windows often cut down on energy expenditure by providing better insulation. Energy-saving appliances are available through Energy Star, a government-backed program helping businesses and individuals protect the environment through superior energy efficiency. You may also be entitled to a tax break! Low flow faucets and other plumbing fixtures use less water than standard sinks and toilets. Of course, energy-saving light fixtures, fluorescent bulbs and the use of skylights providing natural daylight help reduce lighting costs. 

If you’re planning to remodel or add a room to your existing home, there are many ways to “do it greener.” You can use paints that are lower in volatile organic compounds and avoid carpeting, adhesives and varnishes that often give new homes their distinctive smell that has often been associated with health problems. Spray-on foam insulation fills and seals wall cavities better than fiber glass and is more environmentally friendly. Remodeling your kitchen? Steel counter tops using locally-produced recycled metal or concrete counters using inlays made of granite leftovers might be an option.

  www.greenhomebuilding.com and www.ecoact.org are two websites with much information on this topic.

Live Green or Die  
by Dee Stofko
July 2008

You know environmental issues are at the forefront of the minds that matter when Business Week’s cover of the June issue reads, “GM’s Challenge: Live Green or Die”. GM was featured prominently in the film “Who Killed the Electric Car”, a film shown by the Social Justice Ministry at one of its recent free First Tuesday movie nights. The movie documented the true story of how GM engineers developed an electric car and then killed it because, had GM gone to market with it, it wouldn’t have made money selling it. The Company also lost $1 billion developing the car.

That was in 2003—fast forward to 2008. Toyota’s hybrid Prius has catapulted that company into huge profits while GM is losing billions on gas guzzling monsters like the Hummer. So GM has decided to jump on the green bandwagon, so to speak. But is it too late?

GM has announced the development of the Volt—which is due out in 2010. This revolutionary vehicle will use a giant version of the lithium ion batteries that power cell phones and laptops. It will plug into a regular outlet. But will it work? GM engineers are confident that it will. The Company is spending nearly $1 billion per month in R&D this year alone to make sure it does. With congress passing new fuel regulations, GM has no choice but to “Live Green” or it won’t survive. By 2010 the Company needs to have 38 of its cars hybrid-ready in order to meet tougher fuel economy rules. That’s up from 5 hybrids it has today. Maybe the next movie will be titled, “Who Survived Because of the Electric Car.”

More “simple ways” to help the environment in my next article.

I can’t believe how many stories I saw this month about the environment! I decided to scrap the tips for now—too many very important items to discuss. I’m going to touch on each briefly:

First of all, there was a G-8 Summit in Toyako, Japan (this isn’t a misprint) on July 7th. For those of you who aren’t “in the know”, the G-8 Summit is a meeting of the leaders of the top 8 leading industrial nations held once a year to discuss global issues. The first Summit was held in 1975 with only 6 members. It quickly became 7 in 1976; and when Russia was asked to join in 1991, it became 8. This year the G-8 endorsed halving global emissions by 2050. Of course, it’s easy to “talk the talk”. Now we have to see if they’re willing to “walk the walk”. Many environmentalists still feel this falls far short of what is needed. The communique did not set a base year from which emissions would be cut. Many argue that the 50% reduction is insufficient and 2050 too far in the future.

Back at home in the good old U.S.A., on July 8th, Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, accused the Bush Administration, and V.P. Dick Cheney specifically, of a “coverup” aimed at stopping the Environmental Protection Agency from tackling greenhouse emissions. According to Jason Burnett of the EPA, the White House pressured him to retract an email in which he detailed some findings that “greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public welfare.”

Lastly, on July 17th, former V.P. Al Gore challenged Americans “to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean, carbonfree sources within 10 years.” Gore spoke from Constitution Hall in Washington D.C. He called the proposal, “achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans in every walk of life, to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, our innovators, our engineers, and to every citizen.”

Become informed citizens. Go to www.GreenDallas.net to find out what you can do to jump on the Green Bandwagon in your City and help SAVE THE PLANET.

As I promised, here are the next five simple tips from the Dallas Morning News Article published on April 18th from the Chicago Tribune:

Home Electronics:
Power them off. A home office with a computer, printer, fax machine, computer speakers, scanner and cordless phone could consume as much power as two 75-watt light bulbs left on 24/7. And that could cost you $100 a year in electricity. Plug equipment into a surge protector-power strip. Power off all equipment and then turn off the power strip at the end of the day.

Thermostats:
Get a programmable thermostat and save as much as $150 a year. Set it way up in the summer or way down in the winter when everyone’s at work or at school and when they’re asleep. And program it to turn up the heat in winter or air conditioning in summer shortly before folks get home or shortly before they wake up.

Leaky Toilet:
Fix it now. A leaky toilet can waste 200 gallons of water a day. Check for leaks by adding food coloring to the tank. If you have a leak, color will appear in the bowl within 15 minutes. Flush as soon as you’re done with this test to avoid staining the bowl. It is estimated that 2 out of every 10 toilets in the United States leak. Those two leakers can waste as much as 146,000 gallons of water a year. That’s enough water for a family of four to wash clothes in their washing machine for eight years.

Newspaper:
A year’s worth of papers from a big-city daily weighs nearly a half-ton. Every ton of paper that gets recycled saves the equivalent of 17 trees, saves enough energy to power an average home for six months, saves 7,000 gallons of water and keeps 60 pounds of pollutants out of the air.

Light Bulbs:
Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs. If you replace five of your most-used incandescent bulbs with CFLs, you can save $25 to $65 a year in energy costs. CFLs use two-thirds less energy than incandescent bulbs, generate 70% less heat and last up to 10 times longer. They do contain a small amount of mercury—but the benefits of using CFLs outweigh the mercury issue. As far as home electronics, the ones that aren’t plugged into a power strip can also be unplugged when not in use to conserve energy. Using a power strip or having electronics unplugged saves them from getting damaged during severe electrical storms. Boxes should be broken down to be recycled with newspapers. With CFLs, you save not only in energy usage but because bulbs don’t need to be replaced as often.

Dee Stofko from www.dallasnews.com