Canada has formally pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, dealing a serious blow to the anti-global warming treaty that was initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan in 1997.

In doing so, Canada has become the first country to officially turn its back on the treaty. Its withdrawal follows Canadian announcements from 2010 that it would not accept new Kyoto commitments. Russia and Japan both echoed those threats last year, and many commentators are now predicting they could follow Canada through the exit.

Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent (pictured above) said that Canada is invoking its legal right to withdraw. Canada’s previous Liberal government signed the accord, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has never viewed the treaty with great affection. Kent told Associated Press:

“The Kyoto Protocol does not cover the world’s largest two emitters, United States and China, and therefore cannot work. It’s now clear that Kyoto is not the path forward to a global solution to climate change. If anything it’s an impediment.”

Canada’s withdrawal is not timely. On Sunday, negotiators from almost 200 countries wrapped talks in Durban, South Africa that would see a replacement for the first Kyoto Protocol adapted by 2015. The original Protocol expires at the end of next year.

Kent said the current Canadian government does not view the Durban agreement as a realistic path forward.

The Harper government is hesitant to damage Canada’s booming oil sands sector, the country’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gases, and a big factor in why it has reneged on its Kyoto commitments. Canada has the world’s third-largest oil reserves, more than 170 billion barrels.

Canada Withdraws from Kyoto Protocol is a post from: The Inquisitr

Geothermal energy’s reputation took a blow today after it was revealed two taxpayer-backed clean energy companies are facing serious financial difficulties.

USA Today reports on the plight of Raser Technologies and Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP), both of which specialize in capturing heat from the earth and converting it to electricity.

Both firms received a total of $195 million in partial federal loan guarantees and grants that were intended to promote clean energy. Yet financial records unearthed by USA Today reveal that neither company has ever pulled a profit.

Raser Technologies already filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this year, while NGP is facing a growing risk of closure. Both companies have agreements in place with utilities to buy the energy they produce, but Raser never produced more than 5 megawatts of power at its plant in Beaver County, Utah.

The case of Raser and NGP carries echoes of Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar manufacturer that received a $535million federal loan in 2009 by the U.S. government.

The same program that doled out money to Solyndra granted a $98.5million loan guarantee to NGP. Two years ago, Republicans jumped at the chance to criticize the Obama administration over the Solyndra loan, and are unlikely to ignore the failure of Raser and NGP.

When questioned about the complete lack of profits for NGP, the company’s head of investor communications, Paul Mitchell, told USA Today:

“You have to drill. It’s not unexpected that you can get these lag periods where our productivity and our monetary targets lag behind as we develop the resource.”

A third company, U.S. Geothermal, is in similar dire straits, having received a $97 million Energy Department loan in February, yet not having generated a profit in the past four years.

Geothermal Energy Companies Failing to Make Profit is a post from: The Inquisitr

As populations grow and pollution increases, ideas like this are gold dust. One Chinese company has proposed new buses that are SO FREAKING BIG they straddle the road, while cars drive beneath them. The sheer amount of awesome in that idea is making me breathless.

Designers at Shenzhen Hashi Future Parking Equipment Co., Ltd argue that these behemoth buses solve a number of issues in one fell swoop, and would result in fewer traffic jams, less emissions, and faster travel.

And this isn’t just a fanciful, imaginary vision of our future; these things are actually being put into pilot use shortly. They should make their debut in Beijing’s Mentougou district, where work is to commence on the first 186km of track at year’s end.

Each of the jumbo buses will measure 4 to 4.5 meters high, with passengers aboard the upper level and other vehicles lower than 2 meters going under. Powered by electricity and solar energy, the bus can carry 1,200 to 1,400 passengers at a time.

[China Hush, via Engadget]

Holycrapawesome: China planning giant buses that cars can drive under is a post from: The Inquisitr

Former head of research unit responds to criticism by arguing for necessity of assessing excerpts by independent reviews

This article was written by Adam Vaughan, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 15th July 2010 00.59 UTC

The former head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which was at the centre of a media and scientific storm over leaked emails, said their response to the incident was delayed by “shock” at the leak and at the content of the communications, a Guardian debate heard last night.

Professor Trevor Davies, the UEA’s pro-vice chancellor of research, spoke out after climate scientists and sceptics clashed last week over the findings of a six-month inquiry into the emails dating back 13 years.

“We were shocked too by the excerpts from the original emails and that was one reason why we were accused of slowing our response. We had to verify they were real. We decided to assess them, not by a small number of emails, but by independent reviews,” Davies said.

The university was criticised by climate sceptics and commentators last year including the Guardian columnist George Monbiot, who accused it of reacting slowly to the publication of the emails in November and the ensuing media storm.

The pro vice-chancellor struck a conciliatory note at the heated debate, as panellists argued over whether the inquiry drew a line under the affair or was a “whitewash”, as one critic said.

Davies said: “There are lessons to be learned. We need to be much more aware of interactions between the mainstream media and the blogosphere and contribute to public debates.”

He said the university had a series of initiatives planned for later this year to such effect.

Responding to criticisms in the findings of last week’s Muir Russell report, which called the university and its Climatic Research Unit’s (CRU) responses to freedom of information requests “unhelpful and defensive”, he said: “We have to be more helpful to freedom of information and environmental regulation requests.” He defended two reviews commissioned by UEA as “wholly independent”, and reiterated the conclusions of the total of three reviews into the affair, all of which cleared scientists of wrongdoing and manipulating data, and said the science was sound.

But prominent climate sceptic bloggers Stephen McIntyre and Douglas Keenan criticised the CRU and UEA. “Both the Muir Russell review and Oxburgh review [an earlier review of the emails] are clearly whitewash. That is not the problem. The real problem is the lack of systematic accountability, whereby allegations of improper behaviour are dealt with,” said Keenan.

He also claimed that university researchers were switching from using their university to using Gmail addresses, to avoid being covered by freedom of information requests. Bob Watson, chief scientist at Defra, said he had not personally heard of any scientists switching to such email addresses.

Under questioning from McIntyre, Davies confirmed Sir Muir Russell, the chair of the six-month inquiry published last week, had not met Phil Jones, the current head of the CRU, in person after his inquiry’s panel was appointed in February. Evidence from Jones was instead taken by other officials.

Watson, a former head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the system for advising governments on how to act on climate change should accomodate sceptical opinions. “I think the IPCC is probably the best system you could invent… but sceptical views must be in the document.”

He also said the IPCC had failed to admit mistakes quickly over an error in its last major report about the rate of glacier melting in the Himalayas. But he added the UN panel was “very strong” and would be strengthened by a review into its work due to be published in September by the InterAcademy Council. Watson was damning about media coverage of the emails affair. “The printed press said UEA was guilty without examination. One had the feeling people were guilty without an in-depth analysis.” Davies said Jones, who admitted earlier this year he had considered suicide because of the pressure on him, had been “hounded by the press”. The panel included science journalist Fred Pearce, Davies, Defra chief scientific adviser Bob Watson and climate sceptic bloggers Doug Keenan and Stephen McIntyre. It was chaired by Monbiot.

Last week the third and final UK report into the emails affair, the Muir Russell review, cleared the CRU of manipulating data. Announcing the findings, Muir Russell said: “Ultimately this has to be about what they did, not what they said. The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt.”

Jones, the former head of CRU and scientist at the centre of many of the emails, was appointed last week to the newly-created post of director of research at CRU.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

UEA’s delayed response to climate emails caused by shock, says professor is a post from: The Inquisitr

Muir Russell report says scientists did not fudge data, but they should have been more open about their work

This article was written by David Adam, environment correspondent, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 8th July 2010 01.13 UTC

The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm over leaked emails were yesterday cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics, but a review found they had failed to be open enough about their work.

Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were not in doubt. His investigation concluded they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism and that key data was freely available and could be used by any “competent” researcher.

But the panel said the scientists’ responses to “reasonable requests for information” had been “unhelpful and defensive”. The inquiry found “emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them” and that there had been “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness”. Scientists also failed to appreciate the risk their lack of transparency posed to the university and “indeed to the credibility of UK climate science”.

The controversy began when 13 years of emails from CRU scientists were released online last year. Climate change sceptics claimed they showed scientists manipulating and suppressing data to back up a theory of manmade climate change. Critics also alleged the scientists abused their positions to cover up flaws and distort the peer review process that determines which studies are published in journals, and so enter the scientific record. Some alleged the emails cast doubt on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Announcing the findings, Russell said: “Ultimately this has to be about what they did, not what they said. The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt … We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”

The review is the third and final inquiry into the email affair, and effectively clears Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, and his colleagues of the most serious charges. Questions remain over the way they responded to requests for information from people outside the conventional scientific arena, some of whom were critics of Jones. “We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA,” said the report, commissioned by UEA at a cost of £200,000.

It also criticised the CRU scientists for failing to include proper labels on a 1999 graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation, which was the subject of an infamous email about Jones using a “trick” to “hide the decline”. The panel said the result was misleading, though they accepted this was not deliberate as the necessary caveats had been included in the report text.

Acknowledging that the digital age brought a greater demand for openness and access to data, it concluded “like it or not, this indicates a transformation in the way science has to be conducted in this century.” Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of UEA, said the university accepted the report’s conclusion that it should have been more open. “The need to develop a culture of greater openness and transparency in CRU is something we faced up to internally some months ago and we are already working to put right.”

He hoped the review would “finally lay to rest conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings” that had been circulating, and that the “wilder assertions” about the climate science community would now stop.

Jones issued a statement which said: “I am, of course, extremely relieved that this review has now been completed. We have maintained all along that our science is honest and sound and this has been vindicated now by three different independent external bodies. There are lessons to be learned and I need time to reflect on them.” Jones is to be director of research at CRU. Acton said this was “not a demotion but a shift in emphasis of role”.

Ed Miliband, the former climate change secretary, said: “Muir Russell has given the world a clear message: we should not believe those who tell us that one string of emails undermines years of climate science. We should also learn lessons because maximum openness and transparency is the best weapon against those who want us to stick our heads in the sand as if climate change isn’t happening. Now the world needs to step up the momentum again and get the deal that eluded us at Copenhagen.”

Writing on Comment is Free, Dr Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, who testified to the inquiry, said: “The Russell review has rejected all claims of serious scientific misconduct. But he does identify failures, evasions, misleading actions, unjustifiable delays, and pervasive unhelpfulness – all of which amounts to severely sub-optimal academic practice. Climate science will never be the same again.”

Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said: “It is clear that greater transparency is required in climate research because of the intense public interest in it, and its profound implications for society. However, it is also now very apparent that many so-called sceptics owe a huge apology to the public for having presented the email messages as evidence that climate change is a hoax carried out by a conspiracy of dishonest scientists.”

Acton said: “CRU will be more closely integrated in the bigger school of environmental sciences and a key difference is to place some of the administrative burden that Phil had before this incident on the head of the school.”

Bob Watson, chief scientific advisor to the department of environment, food and rural affairs, said that while it was clear scientists needed to be more transparent, he hoped the report would “draw a line under this episode so that the scientific

community can begin to regain the trust of the public and continue to

do its vital work on climate change, which remains one of the biggest

challenges we face as a planet.”

Myles Allen, head of the climate dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said: “What everyone has lost sight of is the spectacular failure of mainstream journalism to keep the whole affair in perspective. Again and again, stories are sexed up with arch hints that these “revelations” might somehow impact on the evidence for human impact on climate. Yet the only error in actual data used for climate change detection to have emerged from this whole affair amounted to a few hundredths of a degree in the estimated global temperature of a couple of years in the 1870s.”

Additional reporting by Christine Ottery

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Climategate scientists cleared of manipulating data on global warming is a post from: The Inquisitr

There’s been a lot of talk about what the Apple Tablet will do for the PC industry, Apple profits, the future of content delivery, etc. What I haven’t seen is a whole lot about what the product will do for our Environment. If the Apple Tablet is able to take some market share from netbooks and notebook manufacturers it could have a bigger impact on the environment than it does on Apple’s bottom line.

First, the Tablet uses less natural resources to create. While it may still offer a decent sized screen, there’s no unnecessary plastic for a built-in keyboard or for the outer shell of a flip open netbook or notebook. Plus, Apple has been moving their products towards a more green approach, making their products out of recycled materials whenever possible. While a green build has yet to be confirmed, it would fit into Apple’s recent green friendly approach. Times Apple Tablet sales in the millions if it takes off and push down typical computer sales and it’s a small win for the environment.

Second, Apple is working with various content delivery companies to create a new way of delivering newspapers, magazine and even ebooks to users. Much like the Kindle and Barnes & Noble Nook, the tablet could greatly reduce the number of newspapers prints, books purchased in physical form, and if they hold true to their multimedia abilities, CD’s and Movies purchased as well. We live in Digital times, the only problem so far has been figuring out how to store all of our digital items efficiently, a small, powerful portable device could be the answer for many users. If Apple adds any time of cloud storage space for the item, it could be an even bigger win for the company.

I’m assuming the tablet will feature full multimedia capabilities with a kick ass music player, if that’s the case the ability to use one device as a computer, MP3 player and even portable video player could help greatly reduce the amount of power used to control 2, 3 even 4 devices all at one time. Sure it may not have a phone attached, but it could offer most other functions required by users. Throw in an eventual bluetooth remove for your home TV and other functions via software and hardware and the Tablet could turn into the all-in-one device users have been begging for.

Finally, the unit aside from using less resources to produce, could reduce the number of computers per household, which in turn could help save on energy consumption. According to iLounge rumors this week, there will be two docking stations available for the Apple Tablet. If docking with full keyboard and mouse capabilities is available, it would allow users to buy a device that uses less resources to create and then shy away from secondary devices for more comfortable home use with their familiar peripherals.  Given the low power consumption of Mac products this could be a big win for consumers and the environment.

It’s hard to know exactly what green technology the Apple Tablet will provide, however if one thing is for certain, it’s that Apple has made excellent strides towards greening their products over the last several years, if the tablet follows those same environmentally more friendly principles, the Tablet may not just change the way users think about computing, but also the way their use effects our environment.

What do you think, if the Apple Tablet ends up offering excellent computing with a simple to use docking station and integrated apps and games functionality found on iPhone and iPod Touch devices would you be willing to use it as a synergetic part of your daily life, thus connecting what you do and how you do it?

4 Reasons Why The Apple Tablet Could Be Good For The Environment is a post from: The Inquisitr

Chalk this one up in the FAIL column.

This isn’t what they mean by biofuels is a post from: The Inquisitr

We live in a throw-away society. Don’t want it anymore throw it away – anywhere. Finished that bottle of water just toss the bottle to the curb after all no-one gives a shit anyway. The problem is that all that thrown away plastic is collecting in places we don’t see everyday and causing an ecological disaster.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is one of those collections of garbage but because it is somewhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean no-one cares. Even the word patch is a misnomer given that this one section of floating garbage covers some 1,700 miles.

Researchers from Project Kaisei and the Scripps Environmental Accumulation of Plastic Expedition (SEAPLEX) recently journeyed through the entire area collecting samples as they went. The expedition included researchers, sailors, journalists and government officials and lasted four weeks. As for the size of the patch – the 1,700 miles is only the distance that the expedition travelled before having to return, members of the research teams say it is much larger than that they just didn’t have enough time to map it all.

Mary Crowley, Project Kaisei co-founder, said: "More than 30 years ago, on my first trip to the North Pacific Gyre I found a few glass ball fishing floats, one net and there were, in four days, perhaps two pieces of floating plastic.

"Returning now with Project Kaisei .. the marine debris situation shows a startling change in this same area. In 30 minutes one easily can count up to 400 pieces of plastic on the sea’s surface."

The team found a variety of invertebrates living in the debris, including crabs, sea anemones, barnacles, sponges and algae, sparking fears that the plastic may aid the spread of invasive species.

Source: BBC – Voyage confirms plastic pollution

images via Wikipedia and Inhabitat

1,700 miles of floating garbage – our garbage is a post from: The Inquisitr

It is absolutely amazing the diversity of materials we are using these days as building materials for our homes and business. As we move further into a world looking for sustainability and ways not to damage the environment around us the ideas are coming hot and heavy about even newer materials. Considering that in the US buildings account for thirty-eight percent of the CO2 emissions the demand for carbon neutral and/or zero footprint building the demand for building materials to meet these needs will only increase.

One new (to the United States) material that is getting a lot of attention is from a UK-based business, Lhoist Group, and their Tradical® Hemcrete® concrete substitute. This a product made from mixing hemp, lime and water and is 7x as strong as normal concrete as well as being carbon negative.

Good looking, environmentally friendly and 100% recyclable, Hemcrete® is as versatile as it is sustainable. It can be used in a mind-boggling array of applications from roof insulation to wall construction to flooring. It is seven times stronger than concrete, weighs half as much, and is less prone to cracking. Hemcrete® is also waterproof, fireproof, insulates well, does not rot and is completely recyclable. In fact, the manufacturers say that demolished Hemcrete® walls can actually be used as fertilizer!

Source: Inhabitat :: Carbon Negative Hemp Walls are 7x Stronger than Concrete

The problem is that the species of hemp used in making Hemcrete is illegal to grow in the US which means the product has to be imported making an expensive alternative for now.

image courtesy of Inhabitat

Please don’t smoke the walls is a post from: The Inquisitr

Everyone is all hot to trot these days about repurposing, recycling, re-using just about anything that won’t biodegrade in your hands while you look at it. While a lot of the stuff we see is more arts and crafty style there are those rare times when something really cool comes along the way.

Such is the case with the work by Joel Hester through his Huston based company Weld House. Take the hood of the car in the picture above. One would figure that once a car reaches this point there’s not much left to do with it. Well, it’s a good thing that Joel doesn’t feel that way or we wouldn’t have the please of having a really cool set of side tables like these ones

Through Weld House, Joel has taken the idea of repurposing the broken down and decaying vehicles at a junk yard and giving them a new life as usable objects. Much like taking the hood of this clunker of a pickup and making a coffee table anyone would be willing to brag about.

Some might consider a starting price of around the $700 mark to be a little high but for that you are helping the environment and getting some cool bragging rights at the same time. You can see the full range of his work through his Flickr stream or drop by the Weld House site to see about getting something of your own.

hat tip to Treehugger

The art of being green and recyclable is a post from: The Inquisitr

As we look for different way to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels to power out automobiles hydrogen has been suggested as an excellent source of vehicle power. The big problem with that though is the inherent high price of converting water into hydrogen and oxygen. This means that all the hydrogen in production today comes via the use of fossil fuels.

However US researcher Gerardine Botte from Ohio University may have just found a way to utilize urine through an electrolytic process to produce hydrogen. This would result in the power source being created at a fraction of the cost it currently takes.

Botte says the idea came to her several years ago at a conference on fuel cells, where they were discussing how to turn clean water into clean power. ‘I wondered how we could do this better,’ she adds – so started looking at waste streams as a better source of molecules from which to produce hydrogen.

Urine’s major constituent is urea, which incorporates four hydrogen atoms per molecule – importantly, less tightly bonded than the hydrogen atoms in water molecules. Botte used electrolysis to break the molecule apart, developing an inexpensive new nickel-based electrode to selectively and efficiently oxidise the urea. To break the molecule down, a voltage of 0.37V needs to be applied across the cell – much less than the 1.23V needed to split water.

‘During the electrochemical process the urea gets adsorbed on to the nickel electrode surface, which passes the electrons needed to break up the molecule,’ Botte told Chemistry World. Pure hydrogen is evolved at the cathode, while nitrogen plus a trace of oxygen and hydrogen were collected at the anode. While carbon dioxide is generated during the reaction, none is found in the collected gasses as it reacts with the potassium hydroxide in the solution to form potassium carbonate

Source: RSC :: Chemistry World – Urine turned into hydrogen fuel

Granted we aren’t likely to be pulling up to port-o-johns instead of gas pumps any time soon but you gotta admire people who are willing to brave experimenting with our bodily function left-over’s on the off chance we can use them in a good way.

hat tip to EcoGeek.org

Need to fill up your hydrogen powered car? Pull up to the port-o-johnny is a post from: The Inquisitr

I’m not much of a camera buff but I know a lot of folks in the tech world are. In some cases it seem to go hand in hand, just as poker does. This means that there are a lot of tech type folks around with camera equipment some of which after years of us might not be in working order, but what to do with those broken lends and camera bodies?

How about turning them into planters?

Yes, planters.

The folks over at Photojojo have an excellent post up today on how you can turn those broken lens and unusable camera bodies into some cool DIY flower planters. So rather than being an environmental bad boy check the post out and do your bit for the environment and be cool doing it – but don’t forget to take some pics.

image courtesy of Photojojo

Excuse me, but is that a daisy growing out of your camera lens? is a post from: The Inquisitr

One of the biggest debate going on between global climate change believers and detractors is the rise of sea levels around the world. When it comes to the US a new study in the Nature Geoscience (subscription required) journal is suggesting that the changes in the Mississippi Delta area could be far worse that previously thought.

It is suggested that the area could see between 3,800-5,200 square miles of coastal land will be submerged.

The researchers say that retaining existing delta surface area would require 18-24 billion tons of sediment deposition, something made critically more difficult because the sediment load of the Mississippi has been reduced by 50% due to dam construction in the Mississippi River basin.

They conclude that "significant drowning is inevitable" and that land areas now below 1 meter in elevation will become open water or marsh.

Source: Treehugger :: 4,000 Square Miles of Mississippi Delta Inevitably Drowned Due to Sea Level Rise: New Estimate Shows

Why do I get the feeling that we will be arguing about this stuff right up to the point when we’re all wearing hip-waders just to go down to the corner store.

image courtesy of NASA

New report shows Mississippi Delta to lose 4,000 square miles is a post from: The Inquisitr

Technology is a driving force in our world, however if that world is facing environmental problems which do you think the majority of people would choose?

The Shelton Group wondered the same thing which lead to a recent study using a sampling group of 1,006 and asked them the the following question – "If these things were harming the environment, which of the following would you be willing to give up?," The percentages of those who would be willing to do without some gadget or modern convenience broke down like this:

• iPod – 38 percent
• Dishwasher – 35 percent
• Microwave – 25 percent
• Cellular phone – 21 percent
• Air conditioning – 14 percent
• TV – 13 percent
• Computer – 7 percent
• Car – 6 percent
• None of the above – 21 percent
• All of the above – 6 percent

In other words says market researcher Suzanne Shelton, “Consumers don’t want to give up the modern conveniences of life. We’re all basically saying, ‘I’ll be green as long it doesn’t make me uncomfortable or inconvenienced.’”

This doesn’t surprise me one little bit.

hat tip to EcoGeek.org

Let’s see … iPhone or less harm to the environment – which would you pick? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Pretty well every American knows about the National Debt Clock located on Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, New York City. It’s a stark reminded for anyone that passes it by just how far in debt the country is. Well now thanks to a team of researchers at MIT and Deutsche Bank’s Asset Management division the National Debt clock will be joined by the Greenhouse Gases in Our Atmosphere digital billboard just outside of Madison Square Gardens and Penn Station.

The billboard is 70-feet-tall and is being used to display how many tonnes of long-lived greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere. As well the data will be made available online and through a downloadable widget that you can add to your desktop or website.

At the unveiling the billboard showed that there are currently 3.64 trillion tons of these long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with 800 metric tonnes being added every second.

Speaking following the launch of the counter, Kevin Parker, global head of Deutsche Bank’s Asset Management division, said the aim of the new counter was to provide a tangible reminder of the impact of climate change.

"We cannot see greenhouse gases, so it is easy to forget that they are accumulating rapidly," he said. "It will be a huge task to bring global emissions under control and my hope is that putting this data in public view will spur both governments and markets to move us more quickly to a low-carbon economy."

MIT’s John Reilly said the counter would lag slightly behind real time as the rate of increase in emissions would be based on data collected on a monthly basis. He also confirmed that the effect of seasonal variations had been stripped out from the data to give a better picture of the underlying rate of interest.

But he insisted that with the counter drawing on measurements from dozens of atmospheric stations around the world, it presented the most up-to-date information on greenhouse gas emissions.

Source: Business Green

Is it just me or does that sound like a lot of greenhouse gases being added?

Photo via RedGreenandBlue

We know the National Debt clock but how about one for greenhouse gases? is a post from: The Inquisitr

As we continue down the road to more green types of energy solar panels are touted as being the one way that individuals can do their part. The big problem with that though is the cost outlay to buy and install those solar panels. While many people might like the idea of being able to give the power companies the big index finger the vast majority just don’t have those type of funds.

Well it would seem that the city of San Diego has realized this and have come up with possible solution that just might encourage more people to go solar. Starting in July the city will being launching a new initiative that will see the city finance the cost of the solar panels and allow homeowners to pay back the loan with their property tax bills over 20 years.

The loans will be at a fixed rate and will be transferrable if you sell your home during the life of the loan.

It is nice to see that San Diego can realize the benefits of solar power – especially in the hands of individuals – and is willing to make this kind of investment. Not too mention as well that this would also see additional funds being added to the city coffers through the interest being charged on the loans. One would think that this is one of those win-win situations for everyone involved.

[hat tip to EcoGeek]

An interesting way to get solar panels up and running is a post from: The Inquisitr

With the growing concern, right or wrongly, about climate change and the need to consider more environmentally friendly products when buy both everyday products and our tech toys has become a major factor. As more and more people start looking for these alternatives companies are rushing forward with claims about how green their products are and how they are going to improve in the future. The problem is that a large percentage of these claims are pure bullshit.

For those of you not familiar with the term greenwashing it means, according to Wikipedia

Greenwash (a portmanteau of green and whitewash) is a term used to describe the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly, such as by presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of resources. It is a deceptive use of green PR or green marketing. The term green sheen has similarly been used to describe organizations that attempt to show that they are adopting practices beneficial to the environment.

It turns out according to a new study by Canadian TerraChoice, who run the Canadian government’s eco-labeling program, that only 2% of products labeling themselves as green are completely legit. The remaining 98% of products range from questionable to borderline lying.

In the United States and Canada, a total of 2,219 products making 4,996 green claims were recorded. These claims were tested against best practices, notably against guidelines provided by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Competition Bureau of Canada, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, and the ISO 14021 standard for environmental labeling.

Of the 2,219 North American products surveyed, over 98% committed at least one of the previously identified Six Sins of Greenwashing and a new Seventh Sin emerged.

Source: The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – TerraChoice [hi-rez PDF] [low-rez PDF]

Gee who would have thought – companies spewing out cool buzzwords that are nothing more than lies in order to make even more money for the same old products.

As far as our tech toys are concerned the TerraChoice study didn’t have much to say as they concentrated mostly on household and children’s goods. If you accept that Greenpeace has an agenda with anything they do you will find that they do have a good report on computer companies and their green efforts, which they put out yearly.

The business of greenwashing equals more profits is a post from: The Inquisitr

Going green – meaning doing whatever we can in our lives to become more ecologically minded in the things we buy or use is a major part of our news these days. Equally so is the effects of the recession that we are all living through which makes it interesting to see which of the two actually have more of an effect on our decisions to go green and save money while we’re at it.

Well it turns out that the recession is having more of an effect on the things we buy and use rather than wanting to do better for the environment. This is according to a new survey from The Shelton Group who found that 71% of people considered buying energy efficient products in order to save money versus the 51% who said they do it to protect the environment.

Consumers were looking at taking (or had already taken) a bunch of energy-related decisions that would likely save them some green.

• 44 percent responded they are likely to buy a programmable thermostat;  32 percent already have.
• 43 percent responded they are likely to install insulation in their homes; 26 percent already have.
• 42 percent responded that they are to install a higher-efficiency water heater; 26 percent already have.

On the other hand, decisions that might help only the environment, and not their wallet were much less desireable.

• Installed natural / indigenous / low water landscaping – 13 percent.
• Participate in utility’s green power program – 9 percent.
• Buy carbon offsets for plane trips or for home – 6 percent.

Source: EcoGeek.org

I gotta admit that these kind of results don’t surprise me in the least. Until something hurts an individual’s pocketbook the lifestyle of the rich and famous will always trump treating our world properly.

[picture courtesy of EcoGeek]

Saving some green is more important than being green is a post from: The Inquisitr

There’s a lot of electronic equipment out there sitting in junk piles, hidden away in stacks of old computer equipment in closets and one has to wonder just what can we do with all this crap. Well the folks at Upcycled Jewellery have a great idea – make jewellery out of it. As you can see from the photos some of it really kind of cool.

I realize that Valentine’s day has come and gone for another year but come on guy’s how about doing your bit for the environment and getting your favorite girl some real geek cred with one of these pieces.

View Full Album

hat tip to Treehugger

What to do with old circuit boards? How about girl geekness? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Better mileage is the holy grail for every car manufacturer these days whether it be using electric power, gas or even some form of natural gas. The big problem that has been facing any move to green vehicles has always centered around cost to the consumer with green versions of vehicles costing anywhere from $5,000 and up when compared to their gas guzzling counterparts.

Enter Loremo.

Since 2000 the company has been working hard on a car by the same name. Even though Loremo has yet to produce a production electric vehicle it says that all three of its powertrains should be finished this year. The different powertrains will power 3 different designs of the car. the first version – the base vehicle – will get 120 MPG on a 700 ccm diesel engine that will feature turbo charging, inter-cooling and exhaust gas recycling.

The second model is the GT version with a sportier performance with a 850 ccm engine. As well the car will be able to run on liquefied natural gas (LNG) or pressurized natural gas (PNG).

The final version; and the one closest to production, is Loremo’s take on an ultra-efficient electric motor. Public tests of the Loremo EV are slated to start in March of this year. The price range for all three versions of the vehicle are supposed to range from $22,500 up to $30,000 for the GT model.

If you are so inclined you can keep up with Loremo developments over on the company blog.

[hat tip to EcoGeek]

120 MPG by 2010 for $30G’s is a post from: The Inquisitr