Using a methodology that considers the entire commodity chain, it is estimated that livestock is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transportation. These emissions include, among others, 65% of the anthropogenic emissions of nitrous oxide–the most powerful greenhouse gas, 37% of methane (studies estimate that ruminants on low quality feeds produce more than 75% of the total livestock methane emissions), and 9% of carbon dioxide.

Livestock is by far the single largest user of land. Grazing occupies 26% of the earth’s terrestrial surface, while feed crop production requires about a third of all arable land. Expansion of grazing land for livestock is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America: some 70% of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture. Also 70% of all grazing area is considered degraded, mostly because of overgrazing, compaction, and erosion attributable to livestock activity.

Livestock production also impacts heavily on the world’s water supply, accounting for more than 8% of global water use by humans. Evidence suggests that it is the largest sectoral source of water pollutants, principally animal wastes, antibiotics and more.

The sector also generates almost 2/3 of the total anthropogenic ammonia emission, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

Despite its big environmental impacts, livestock is not a major force in the global economy, accounting for less than 1.5% of global GDP. So why so much harm from something that creates so little wealth? The answer to this question is in the social sphere. Livestock sector is socially and politically very significant in developing countries: it provides food and income for one billion of the world’s poor. Livestock is generally the only source of livelihood.

LEAD (Livestock, Environment and Development) is an initiative of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) whose main objective is to make livestock activity more environmentally friendly. To achieve this, it is key to solve the balance between the demand for animal food products and what the environment needs. Considering that our natural resources are finite, more efficiency is essential.

Current prices of land, water and feed resources used for livestock production do not reflect true scarcities, creating distortions that do not provide incentives for efficient resource use. This leads to overuse of the resources and big inefficiencies in the production process. The proper functioning of price market mechanism, as well as the correction of externalities, is vital to create a more environmentally friendly activity.

The removal of livestock production subsidies is also likely to improve technical efficiency – in New Zealand, a drastic reduction in agricultural subsidies during the 1980s helped create one of the world’s most efficient and environmentally friendly ruminant livestock industries.

LEAD looks to extend the concept of sustainability to this thousand-year old activity through the introduction of technical improvements in applied practices and policies that create incentives for an efficient use of the resources, thus simultaneously achieving social development and improving the environment. With this, education plays a very important role. We should remember that livestock does not single-handedly destroy the environment, people do.

For more information and sources you can visit www.fao.org .

To understand global warming, we need to know the activities that generate these gases to be able to diminish their emissions.

Carbon dioxide (CO2): This is the most widely known greenhouse gas. It is estimated that this gas is responsible for 50% to 60% of the greenhouse effect caused by men. In 2004, 77% of the total emissions of greenhouse gases were of this gas. This is something possible taking into account that 80% of our energy comes from fossil fuels (petrol, carbon and natural gas) that release this gas through combustion. We have already discussed here in SUSTENTATOR that among all fossil fuels, natural gas is the greenest.

Nitrous oxide: With an average life of 100 years in the atmosphere, this is the gas with the most heating power. 5% of the artificial greenhouse effect is attributed to this gas. This substance is liberated to the air mainly through agriculture, residual water treatment and combustion in some industrial processes. It is also produced from natural sources such as soil bacteria and the ocean. Nitrous oxide also affects the ozone layer.

Methane (CH4): This powerful gas is responsible for 16% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is mainly produced by the decomposition of organic material in low-oxygen environments (this is the reason why it is important not to bury organic material). Their biggest generators are the digestive cycle of livestock, certain crops (e.g. rice), garbage dumps (landfills), and in lesser proportion, forest fires as well as the activities of termites and other insects.

Other greenhouse gases are halocarbons (gases that contain fluoride, chlorine or bromine) which are the ones with fewer emissions.

It is important to know the origin of each of these gases because this would enable us to design policies that will substantially cut their emissions. It is not about taking impossible economic decisions like replacing fossil fuels from one year to the other (though it will be the optimal long term objective), but looking for possible, practical, and fast means of reducing emissions such as preventing deforestation or decreasing the methane produced by livestock.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the US government, the national unemployment rate, last October, rose to 10.2%, the highest one since April 1983.

Unemployment means wanting to work and not finding a job. It may mean hunger, despair, lack of opportunities.

On the other hand, we have the highest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere recorded in thousands of years. More CO2 means more greenhouse effect. More greenhouse effect means a warmer planet, with sometimes unpredictable consequences, and other already perceivable effects such as droughts, floods, rising sea levels, and other such natural disasters.

What if we could link these two problems and solve them simultaneously?

Apparently, and fortunately we can.

A report by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) says that if the American Clean Energy and Security Act and the Waxman Markey Act were to operate together, they could generate $150 billion per year in new clean-energy investments in the US. Besides, 1.7 million jobs could be created. And if investments were larger, even more jobs could be generated.

Thus, unemployment would be reduced 1%, in just one year. This is taking into account the job losses that would be caused by  a contraction of the conventional fuel sectors.

In a study entitled “Green Jobs Study” by the US Green Building Council, the economic impact of green building construction is described as significant. Currently, the green building construction sector generates 2.4 million jobs, $173 billion in gross domestic product, and $124 million in wages. In the next four years the amount of jobs created will be nearly 8 million and the green building construction sector will add $554 million to the gross domestic product.

Until now, 15 billion kWh were saved thanks to green buildings and 10 million metric tons of CO2 were avoided. In the next four years, the emission of 45 million metric tons of CO2 will be avoided.

I think economic growth and sustainability make a rather cute couple.

VIA: Wonkroom

For many people, climate change is already a fact. Scientific studies are all around, showing us over and over again how we humans are so mistakenly managing natural resources that we are bringing on our own destruction. We are altering the Earth’s natural ways of keeping a balance.

Only after mid 1900s did we start to look for ways of solving our own mess. The famous Kyoto Protocol tried to make countries put into practice a set of mechanisms to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. One of these mechanisms is carbon trading, a market-based tool to limit GHG emissions.

The basic idea behind carbon trading is that emissions as a whole need to be limited. How to do that? Limit different players’ permission to emit greenhouse gases. Given that for certain industries it is harder to switch to a least emitting way of functioning, the trade factor comes along. If a certain company is having trouble reducing its GHG, it can buy some other company’s permission to emit.

This is a simplified explanation of the famous cap-and-trade scheme. First, a cap is set on the total amount of emissions that will be allowed. Then emissions allowances are distributed that sum up to the cap total. If a firm emits more GHG than what its allowance permits, it can either reduce its emissions or buy another firm’s unused credits.

And if a firm emits less GHG than what it is allowed to, it can either sell its credits or keep them for future use.

Carbon-trading can either be voluntary or mandatory. A mandatory example of emissions trading, the main one in fact, is the Kyoto Protocol, which was put into practice in 2005. It commits members of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) with industrialized or transitional economies (Annex I) to reduce their emissions 5% below levels registered in 1990, between 2008 and 2012.

Among other things, Copenhagen Conference, starting a week from now, is so important because a treaty needs to be achieved to replace Kyoto in 2012.

What do you think about carbon trading?

VIA: HowStuffWorks

Interactive simulators consist of specific software to which a user can insert information, and get a feedback, based on the inputs added, and information it has already incorporated. The good thing about the simulators developed by the Climate Interactive Program is that they are much more accessible and user-friendly than others.

Climate change is a highly complex phenomenon. It is intertwined with society as a whole, because it is our way of functioning that is causing climate change. To solve it, we must consider a number of different and complicated issues, such as the economics of reducing emissions, policy, legislation, science, just to mention a few. However, decision-makers need to “think clearly about the future”. To address this need for clarity, the Sustainability Institute organization is creating several interactive simulation models.

Sustainability Institute is a think tank dedicated partly to climate change, and it has developed the Climate Interactive Program. Through this program, several experts are working to create software to help forecast the effect of different actions on future climate change. The basic idea is that the user can insert data, and preview its probable effects.

The simulation to which the most effort is being dedicated is C-ROADS (Climate Rapid Overview and Decision-support Simulator). It has already been used by the US Department of State to understand the climate impacts of different national proposals, and to discuss this with other parties to the UNFCCC.

Who is behind all this? Obviously, the Sustainability Institute. Also, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management (MIT), Nike, Ventana Systems, the Society for Organizational Learning (SOL), among many others.

Other simulation models designed by the Climate Interactive Program include the Climate Bathtub, which represents the carbon cycle and climate change; the Copenhagen Climate Exercise, that helps practice for negotiating in COP15; Climate Momentum Simulation; C-Learn; and MIT’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Simulator.

The creators of the simulators want them to be distributed to, and to be accessible to as much people as possible, so as to help foster wise and effective decision-making. The tool they have developed has tremendous potential in helping solve the threatening climate crisis we face. Let’s hope we are intelligent enough to use the tools we have to get ourselves out of this mess we’re in.

More: Climate Interactive

This task is an important one. Why? Because methane accounts for 16% of all greenhouse gas emissions that come from human activities. Also, methane, though rarer than carbon dioxide, captures 25 times as much heat. Having a shorter life in the atmosphere, if it is effectively reduced, the impact on climate change could be rather quick and significant.

The M2M Partnership unites the public and private sector. It is organized and works in four main areas: agriculture, coal mines, landfills and oil and gas systems. The different teams work to reduce methane emissions in each of these sectors.

Potentially, the Partnership can bring annual reductions in methane emissions of up to 50 million metric tons of carbon equivalent. If this was achieved, global atmospheric concentrations of methane would be stabilized or even lowered. This would equal removing 33 million cars from roadways for a year.

The M2M was established in 2004 by 14 gathering countries. So far, it has helped deploy methane emission-reducing technologies and practices. These help better energy security, improve environmental quality, and contribute to fight global warming. They can also provide a clean source of energy, by using methane.

Last September, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that from 2011 on, reporting on greenhouse gas emissions will start to be mandatory for industries. There is still a general resistance to this; however, companies that are already enforcing methods to reduce methane leaks say this practice pays for itself.

Let’s hope the M2M continues to deploy methods that help avoid unnecessary pollution, and that companies become more and more willing to invest in cleaner technology.

Via: NYTimes

Methane to Markets

Two North American companies, Altair Nanotechnologies and Proterra LLC designed and put together a bus that generates near zero greenhouse gas emissions.

The bus has transported Congressmen this past week, as a way of being introduced to DC.

Among its breakthroughs, the bus can be recharged very fast: on its rooftop it has a FastCharging hook-up, which allows it to be charged in 5 to 10 minutes. Also, the vehicle can travel 18 to 29 miles per gallon diesel equivalent, which makes it 500% better than a diesel bus. And, this implies a fully loaded bus, with 68 passengers.

The bus was specifically designed to comply with California’s upcoming fuel economy criteria, which are quite strict. But Proterra and Altair expect this bus to be used in more and more urban areas.

In one of its press releases, Proterra claims that producing buses with lithium-titanate batteries could create 6,000 jobs in 21 states. Furthermore, CO2 emissions could be reduced in 840,000 tons by 2021, with a fleet of 500 operating buses.

Up to now, 11 US states have asked for funds to buy Proterra buses and charging stations. Some international customers are also negotiating buying buses to Proterra.

Considering that transportation is a major greenhouse gas emitter, this bus has great potential in easing the way to a greener transport system.

Source: AutoblogGreen

More:

Proterra

AltairNano

Novacem is a small company owned by Imperial College London, and its goal is to reduce the carbon footprint of the cement industry, which currently has one of the highest levels of pollution. Conventional cement is responsible for 5% of worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide, more than airlines.

Their trick is to make cement from magnesium silicate, not calcium carbonate. This alternative material does not emit carbon dioxide when it is manufactured, and the best part is that as it ages, it absorbs greenhouse gases.

Now thanks to the investment of the British Royal Society, Novacem will be able to start manufacturing with a pilot plant that will hopefully be functioning by 2011. They hope to commercialize their product in five years.

The construction industry is looking to reduce pollution in countries such as England, where regulation of the issue is very strict.

Novacem estimates that for each ton of common cement that is avoided due to using their product instead, the emission of almost one ton of carbon dioxide is avoided. This means that an industry that causes a lot of pollution now could turn into an industry that absorbs greenhouse gases. This is an excellent prospect, if the idea is propagated throughout the world.

Source: Scientific American