October 2009 Archives

At last, a Michigan State University study was just released to support what I've suspected all along: behavioral changes likely to be cheaper and faster, in the short term, at reducing carbon emissions than developing new technologies.

Thomas Dietza, Gerald T. Gardnerb, Jonathan Gilliganc, Paul C. Sternd and Michael P. Vandenbergh, of the Department of Sociology and Environmental Science and Policy Program, explored a short-term, high-potential solution for carbon emissions reduction. In the study, policy and behavioral intervention were considered for their ability to promote adoption and usage of existing carbon-emission reducing technologies in national residential buildings and for non-business travel in the U.S..

The study reports that household reductions via behavioral changes such as those recommended could result in US emissions reductions equivalent to the entire emissions of any country in the world outside of China and the U.S.

"Direct energy use by households accounts for approximately 38% of overall U.S. CO2 emissions...This is approximately 8% of global emissions and larger than the emissions of any entire country except China."

The study notes that the potential benefits have potential of cutting emissions in the United States by nearly 8% nationwide, and:
• Avoid overshoot of emissions targets
• Create demonstration effect
• Provide extremely, low-cost emissions reduction
• Buy time to explore other reduction and adaptation solutions

"National implementation could save an estimated 123 million metric tons of carbon per year in year 10, which is 20% of household direct emissions or 7.4% of U.S. national emissions, with little or no reduction in household well-being."

Notably, the study quantifies the carbon emissions reductions of these policy- and intervention-based behavioral changes as being greater than the amount of emissions reductions that would occur if all petroleum refining for steel and aluminum processing (the largest industrial emitter) in the US were to cease.

"We find that the national reasonably achievable emissions reduction (RAER) can be approximately 20% in the household sector within 10 years if the most effective nonregulatory interventions are used. This amounts to 123 MtC/yr, or 7.4% of total national emissions--an amount slightly larger than the total national emissions of France. It is greater than reducing to zero all emissions in the United States from the petroleum refining (69 MtC), iron and steel (38 MtC), and aluminum (13 MtC) industries, each of which is among the largest emitters in the industrial sector. The cost of achieving such a reduction through behavioral change may be far lower than the cost of many alternatives."

Read the findings at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences site.

Dearest Contra-Climate-Changer,

Designers from The Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design and Ebb+Flow have joined with bloggers at Climate of Change to create a powerful viral, contra-climate-change campaign. Our objective? To promote the signing of an ambitious, fair and binding agreement this December at the Copenhagen Climate Conference (COP15) and to encourage the reduction of carbon emissions through campaigns such as 10:10 Global (where individuals, governments and businesses agree to reduce 10% of their carbon emissions by 2010). Strategy, concept, artwork and specs will be completed in the next 10 days. All work on this historic project is 100% probono.

The showcase piece will increase pressure on political leaders--especially President Obama--to attend COP15 and sign a fair, ambitious and binding agreement at the Copenhagen Climate Conference this December.

Here's how you can help. If you are, or know, a flash developer to assemble the interface (from the already created graphics and specs,) please contact us ASAP. If you don't know Flash (or someone who does) you can still help by using the tool and sending it to your networks, once it is completed.

Only 38 days left,

Pamela

Earlier this week, the UK's Guardian reported that the European Union has agreed to cut emissions by 95% if COP15 agreement is made. This, amidst concerns that the US is not prepared to sign a new treaty during the crucial climate conference this December.

Let your senators, representatives and President Obama know that the world needs a US signature on a treaty for climate reductions as strong as science demands!

Sign Action Day.

Sign TckTckTck.

Sign 10:10.

-------------------------------------

Dear Senator Feinstein:

You and I share a concern about the environment and climate change.

I am spending 1-6 hours per day for the 74 days leading up to COP15 (42 more to go!) because I care about our future. The US, China, India, EU and world need to sign a climate treaty this December. The EU has already agreed to 95% emissions reductions from 1990 levels by 2050, if an agreement is signed at COP15. I'm writing to urge you to ensure that the US do the same. We need to get carbon emissions in the atmosphere below 350 parts per million.

Please read my blog, which is a record of my efforts to raise awareness about climate change, and PLEASE ENSURE THE U.S. SIGNS A VIABLE, FAIR AND BINDING ACCORD AS STRONG AS THE IPCC RECOMMENDS THIS DECEMBER 2009 IN COPENHAGEN!

Pamela Snyder
http://74days.GOsustainably.com

MBAs from the Presidio Graduate School of Sustainability take a historic stand for capping global carbon emissions at 350 parts per million. (That's me in the bottom curve of the 3!) Tens of thousands of us made history, October 24, 2009.

Below is a letter from Bill McKibbin with related photos interspersed showing one of the first, and certainly the largest, global political actions in human history. This December we have the opportunity to make history again, at COP15. We only have to make sure our leaders go the direction we know is best. We must take the road away from carbon emissions, toward cleaner skies, reduced climate change, greater diversity of species, healthier ecosystems and happier humans.

Dear friend,

Today in New York was one of the most amazing experiences of my life.

As I stood in Times Square and watched images flood in from every corner of the world on the big screens, I finally saw what a climate movement looked like -- and it looked diverse and creative and beautiful.

Please head to www.350.org and spend a few minutes watching the pictures. We need you to feel the strength of this movement, and to see how creative and committed this movement is, all across the planet.

It was so sweet to watch the day move around the globe, with thousands upon thousands of pictures appearing, sometimes a dozen a minute! There were photos of climbers high on the glaciers of Switzerland holding 350 banners, of bicycle parades from Copenhagen to San Francisco, of organizers in Papua New Guinea beating their church gong 350 times while churches in Barcelona rang their bells 350 times. Photos of activists protesting coal plants and celebrating wind farms, of students in 350 shirts repairing their flooded homes in Manila, and of thousands of people marching in the streets of Bogota and Kathmandu. Photos of people from different races and classes, religions and nationalities, coming together around a simple and powerful number to save our pl anet. Thousands took to the streets in Addis Ababa and Mexico City; we had huge parades in places like Togo and Seattle.

You were by far the biggest news story on Google, on CNN, on the front pages of newspapers around the planet. And these pictures were seen around the world, in newspapers from Beijing to Boston, on TV stations from New Delhi to New York, and on blogs, social networks, and websites across the internet.

Together, we've shown the world that a global climate movement is possible and set a bold new agenda for the upcoming United Nations Climate Meetings in Copenhagen this December. The 350 target is the new bottom line for climate action and world leaders must now meet that target.

We thought we would be tired after many sleepless nights planning this day, but in fact we're more energized than ever. We're preparing to deliver the photos and messages from your events to every national delegation to the United Nations on Monday, and planning to hand the photos to high-level ministers at upcoming climate negotiations in Barcelona and Copenhagen. So if you haven't uploaded your best pictures from the event yet, please do so right away by sending us an e-mail to photos@350.org with your photos attached, with your City, Country as the subject and the body as the action description.

Thank you more than we can possibly say. We'll (of course) be asking you to do lots more in the weeks ahead -- but today, lean back, relax, look through pictures at 350.org, and savor your accomplishment. You were part of what many journalists called "the most widespread day of political action the world has ever seen."

Together with millions around the world, you made a real difference already -- get ready to make much more in the days, weeks and months to come.

With hope,

Bill McKibben and the whole 350.org Team

P.S. As always, we ask that you share this movement any way you can--just telling all your friends and family and colleagues (and Facebook friends and Twitter followers in just a couple of clicks) to visit www.350.org is a great way to start. So many thanks for all that you do.

350 has become synonymous with environmental, social and economic responsibility:

• Environmentally, the number refers to the maximum carbon emissions the planet can bear (350 parts per million).


• Socially, the number points to the cultures that will be lost, communities devastated and wars fought, if we do not curb climate change, as populations scramble to meet basic needs of food, shelter and public health.


• Economically, 350 reminds of the astronomical cost of climate change, with Karina serving as a mere micro-example.

It is not acceptable if companies continue to make frivolous products that pump carbon into the air, triggering melting poles and rising tides that spread floods, famine and destruction. I do not want to fly to India, if it means the very people I'm coming to visit will be washed away by the climate change that ensues from the jet fuel it took to make the flight. I'm not suggesting we go back to living in caves. I'm suggesting we pressure our governments to subsidize development of waste-free, carbon-neutral technologies instead of harvesting old-growth forests or farming crops thrown away to keep prices high.
Don't worry: hypocrisy is the first step!

Yesterday, we made history. Never before have so many people united in a global action for a single cause. Tens of thousands of us gathered in more than 181 countries and 5,200 events. Voices and images from Austria to Zaire joined behind one number.


Momentum is gaining daily, as more individuals, governments and businesses commit to make a difference. Individuals commit through programs like 10:10 and agree to cut 10% of their personal emissions by 2010. Businesses demonstrate commitment by making carbon neutrality a long-term goal and dramatic reduction immediate. Governments play their part by acknowledging the importance of having a measurable goal, like reducing world emissions to 350 from 388, and then putting laws in place to ensure that businesses comply.

(Do you feel fear and resistance kicking in? Are you envisioning having to milk a goat and wash laundry by hand? Remember: the solutions need not be painful. They can and should be exciting, innovative and increase the quality of life. Don't think backwards when thinking carbon reduction! Think: more time outdoors, more time with family and friends; less time working to earn money to buy products designed to break after a short life.)

Yesterday we made history with global activism. Tomorrow we can make history by pushing our leaders to take the road toward an ecologically, socially and economically viable future at COP15 December 2009.

On 24 October, people in 181 countries are coming together for the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet's history. At over 5200 events around the world, people are gathering to call for strong action and bold leadership on the climate crisis.

Find an event near you, and if you're in San Francisco, join us at 5:30pm sharp TODAY, in the back of Fort Mason building B (on the bay side) to have an impact! We will form 350 with our bodies and take an aerial photo, which will be aired in Times Square and around the world by 350.org. See you there!!

P.S.: After Party: Van Ness @ Geary, http://elementlounge.com.

For many years I thought, like so many others may argue, we'll never curb climate change without _____

[fill in the blank]...

• a charismatic leader, because Al Gore didn't cut it and Obama isn't even trying;


• industry getting on board, because they're the real cuprits;


• big business being forced to, because they will only go where profits lead;


• proper legislation, we won't do anything unless forced;


• education, because it's too complicated to understand otherwise


• global laws, because we're not doing it if they don't have to, too; etc.].

Now we've got President Obama, our charismatic leader. But what is he doing about climate change on our behalf? What can we do about it ourselves?

October 24 is Global Day of Climate Action. Get involved!

Submit photos via email by sending them to photos@350.org. In order to be successfully submitted, add your photos as attachments, use your city and country as the subject, and describe your photos with a short caption in the body of your email.

Most importantly, we need to hold President Obama to his promise to combat climate change for the US and the world.

If we do not cease to burn coal, and slow fossil-fuel emissions in the coming decades, James Hansen says the effects will be irreversible. The melting south pole will cause the oceans to absorb more sunlight and accelerate the process. Melting tundra will release greenhouse gas, further accelerating the process. Species will go extinct at increasing rates. Climate zones will shift. Ultimately, the result will be complete collapse of whole ecosystems.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that climate change is the biggest threat to life on earth, which humans had the opportunity to do something about. The biggest opportunity we've ever had to curb climate change is occurring now, in our life time, this very year, December 2009.

What can we do about it?

1. We can refuse to allow the Copenhagen Climate Conference to occur this December with out the signing of a binding, fair agreement that will bring us and maintain us below 350 ppm of CO2.
2. We can insist US President Obama join with the EU and IPCC Chairman Pachuari to insist China, India and the United States commit this December.
3. To reach these goals, we can each dedicate 1 hour per day until the conference, to raise awareness about these life/death issues.
4. To reach these goals, we can dedicate October 24--along with millions of others--to raise awareness about the most important meeting in human history.

James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in NY, who first spoke of climate change over twenty years ago and continues to be one of the world's top climatologists said, "The most threatening change, from my perspective, is extermination of species. Several times in Earth's history, rapid global warming occurred, apparently spurred by amplifying feedbacks. In each case, more than half of plant and animal species became extinct. New species came into being over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. But these are time scales and generations that we cannot imagine. If we drive our fellow species to extinction, we will leave a far more desolate planet for our descendants than the world we inherited from our elders." In the same op-ed piece for the Guardian UK, Hansen said that the UK, US and Germany are, per capita, the worst offenders for atmospheric carbon dioxide, due to burning fossil fuels.

Jerry Cope said recently in the Huffington Post, "COP15 may very well be the last chance for the world to reach a consensus on measures to reduce GHG emissions and avoid climate chaos for the next millennium."

Let's get busy!

Perhaps you're thinking, as I did, that I'd just buy enough carbon off-sets to (assuage my guilt, er, I mean) make everything better? Or perhaps you'd like to jump on the "these things happen every thousand millennia or so" bandwagon? Maybe you're even one of those, "we're going to hell-in-a-handbasket anyway, so why not party all the way down" folks? But, social and environmental disruption is inevitable with continued inaction.

Think floods, droughts, cyclones, tornadoes and hurricanes--with associated unemployment, hunger, epidemics, wars, famines, fear and stress. If we do nothing...sure, some of the world's wealthiest may weather the storm fairly well, for a while. But the majority of life on the planet will eventually teeter on the verge of extinction.

Regardless of whether you think we can buy our way out, blame it on China and India,
or ignore it....someone has to do something about it.

We've been given a blueprint on how, and now we have to make it happen. (See page 18, Key Message #3, of the IPCC synthesis report.) If we don't, we have our grandchildren and favorite things (waterfalls, coral reefs, redwood forests, whatever...) to answer to.

On August 25, 2009, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Pachuari--the UN's top climate scientist--said, "As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations. But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target." It's worth nothing that Chairman Rajendra Pachuari was "hand-picked by Bush to replace 'alarmist' Bob Watson."

Incase you're wondering what Chairman Pachuari means by 350 Target, here's a quick explanation. Climate change is caused by excessive concentrations of carbon (CO2) in the atmosphere. The first full year for which we have a measurement was 1959, when the earth's atmospheric CO2 was at 315.98 parts per million (ppm). 350 ppm of atmospheric carbon is the maximum considered tolerable for sustaining the quality of life on earth that we've been enjoying. In 1987 levels were still below the target, at 348.98. However, since 1987, CO2 levels have skyrocketed to 388.

What will continued increases above 388 ppm mean for the world?

Loss of water for over 1 billion people, due to melting glaciers; multimeter-rising sea levels with island nations and cultures lost in the process; hyper-expansion of subtropical deserts; and massive extinctions. Here's the science and a straight forward explanation.

CO2 Speaker's Corner | Gauthier | Antarctica | February 2009 from Michael McGee on Vimeo.

http://www.climate350.org/petition

Hello Fellow 10:10ers,

I saw Franny Armstrong's film, The Age of Stupid; immediately promised to spend an hour a day minimum learning about and promoting the Copenhagen Climate Conference (COP15, which was 74 days away at that time); and then proceeded to sign the 10:10 promise the following day.

To share ideas on climate change and serve as a hub to others promoting COP15, I set up the blog: Climate of Change. There are already some 30 entries, along with collaborations from other concerned individuals, artists and sustainability minded folk from around the world including the US, Belgium, UK and Australia.

Now there are only 49 days left until the conference and much left to be done. Please share your tips via the comment section at 74days.GOsustainably.com regarding how to reach our 10% emissions reductions by 2010; how to get others to sign the promise; and/or how to get our leaders--especially U.S. President Obama--to sign a fair and binding accord as tough as the science demands at the Copenhagen Climate Conference!

Your help and ideas are needed.

Many thanks,

Pamela

In the past month, I posted an image on my Facebook profile, which gained the attention of a former buddy from high-school, who questions the validity of climate change activism. (I originally posted this image in the 10% by 2010 blog post.) In particular, this buddy argued that China and the developing world present a greater risk than the U.S. does and, anyway, climate is shifting with out our help.

Next came a somewhat clumsy response of my own, where I referred my skeptical buddy to the just-released 2007 EPA report on global warming, suppressed by the Bush administration, which was finally released under the Freedom of Information Act on Tuesday this week. The EPA "endangerment finding" (PDF), which warned the US must act to regulate greenhouse gases, or face catastrophic environmental damage.

Enter friend and colleague, Steve Pierson, with an admirable response, where he lives up to his "walks in two worlds," profile. He gently called attention to fact that the 'climate is making dramatic shifts with out our help,' argument is an acknowledgement that the climate is changing. He also aligned the, 'the developing world poses a greater threat than we do,' argument with the, 'it's not my fault,' defense.

With an appreciative nod to the man in black cowboy hat, I'd like to open this up to other comments:

How do you respond to climate change discussions? Where do fall on the skeptic-believer spectrum and what do you do about it?

Today there is a Ford Expedition parked on my street with Save Mono Lake on its bumper. (Nasty-thought bubble: if the driver truly cared about Mono Lake, then why drive a gas-guzzler like that? Well, maybe it's impractical to pedal one's bike over the the Sierra Nevada mountain range in the winter, to see Mono Lake?) But why dwell on the ironic contradictions of others? Here, in Climate of Change, you will find this very writer's dilemma revealed as sustainably-minded consumer.

The inherent hypocrisy of a climate activist who loves to cozy up with a toasty fire on a winter night (or of a mountaineer who drives an SUV) gives rise to one of the realities we must address if we are to truly become sustainable. How does a well-meaning individual, raised on the conveniences of a rich nation, learn to go with out?

"Less is more," a slogan oft attributed to architects Buckminster Fuller or Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, (but apparently first used by a German poet 1774, Christoph Martin Wieland,) describes a philosophy of minimalism. The principle is easy enough to apply to sustainability. (Use less fossil fuel for a more sustainable future.) However simple, when it comes to putting "less is more" into practice, the realities are complex.

How might an SUV driver put less-is-more into practice where the lake is concerned? How should a travel-loving, renewable energy advocate get to India?

Must I turn in my urban flat for a cave, my holiday to Tanzania for a bicycle camping trip to nearby John Muir Woods, and my Macbook Air for paper and pencil? In a recent TED talk, "3 warp-speed architecture tales," Bjarke Ingels suggests otherwise as he explains how his architectural firm has designed a carbon-neutral building modeled on a mountain in Azerbaijan.

Danish architect Bjarke Ingels rockets through photo/video-mingled stories of his eco-flashy designs. His buildings not only look like nature -- they act like nature: blocking the wind, collecting solar energy -- and creating stunning views.

In a recent post, I questioned, "If less is more, does being sustainable mean replacing indulgence with sacrifice?"

In answering myself, I wouldn't be the first to say, "No!" Carl Safina, in the Orion magazine article, "The Moral Climate," decries our not using the free market to develop renewable energy solutions:

"...Energy competition would mean innovative, diverse, agile, and decentralized energy sources....The unborn, who did not choose it, come saddled with all conceivable consequences. Shame because the poor, who likewise did not choose it, will be hit first and worst."

I recommend, in addition to the page-long Safina article, the comments are well worth the time. Here are a couple noteworthy examples: Robert Riverstrong boils it down when he says, "We need to STOP sacrificing our long-term well-being for short-term convenience." Elizabeth Guss restates it from another angle, "The chief cause of unhappiness in the world is giving up what we really want for what we want at the moment."

In other words, we are sacrificing already. Consider the sea life lost in the Great Pacific Floating Trash Heap; human lives sacrificed in the U.S.-Afghan and U.S.-Iraq occupations and wars for oil; thirst and hunger in the face of the monopolization of water in Bolivia or drought in Tanzania; and cultures lost in island nations like Tuvalu due to climate change, to mention but a few examples of what we lose as we uber-consume to meet the latest trend, demand for convenience or personal whim. But, Carl Sarfina in the same article best articulates the implication of sacrifice, as it relates to sustainability, like this:

"...You are made to believe solution is sacrifice, and that sacrifice for a just cause is not noble but, rather, out of the question. The moral density of this social climate is wafer thin....This refusal to "sacrifice" is actually a pathological refusal to change for the better.... Of all the psychopathology in the climate issue, the most counterproductive thought is that solving the problem will require sacrifice.... We think we don't want to sacrifice, but sacrifice is exactly what we're doing by perpetuating problems that only get worse; we're sacrificing our money, and sacrificing what is big and permanent, to prolong what is small, temporary, and harmful."

Sacrifice isn't my not being able to fly back East to see my nephew. Sacrifice in my nephew's not being able to bike through John Muir Woods some day because it's been destroyed by climate change, deforestation, pollution or habitat encroachment.

To properly motivate myself for sustainability, therefore, perhaps the question I should be asking isn't, "What do I have to give up?" But rather, "What have we given up already?"

P.S., Business Folk take note: Daniel C. Esty and Andrew Winston show how to treat the environment better, reduce costs, increase revenue and improve brand value in their book "Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value and Build Competitive Advantage."

In Fred Pearce's, "Population: Overconsumption is the real problem," that the majority of countries' fertility rates are rapidly decreasing, and the nations with populations that do continue to grow are precisely those that contribute least to global environmental issues like climate change. Citing calculations of Stephan Pacala, Director of Princton Environmental Studies, Pearce notes that 7% of the world's richest inhabitants create fully half of global carbon emissions. He concludes, as the article's title indicates, that over-consumption--rather than over-population--is the true cause of unsustainable resource depletion and pollution.

Continuing along this line of thinking, Matthew McDermott's recent article on Treehugger, "Resource Overconsumption Not Population Growth the Real Environmental Problem: Fred Pearce," suggests that, although technology may provide some of the solutions required for a sustainable future, ultimately, those of us that live in wealthy nations must learn to...(dare I say it?)....do more with less:

"It might be tempting to think that technology can solve some of this, with greater efficiency in manufacturing, reductions in waste, etc., I think the uncomfortable truth is that, while technological improvements are a crucial part of the equation, at the same time we ought to not assume that these alone will allow a more equitable and environmentally sustainable standard of living. We must consider the real possibility that the "normal" level of consumption in the developed world today must seriously be reconsidered."

NEXT TIME: If less is more, does being sustainable mean replacing indulgence with sacrifice?

P.S.: Until we figure this out, please be sure to sign the Hopenhagen petition urging our world leaders to sign a fair and ecologically viable accord this December in Copenhagen at COP15.

October 15, 2009 is Blog Action Day 09! We are one of 8,039 sites, 142 countries, 11,721,661 readers--and counting--participating in the event. You can follow the event, and find the thousands of blogs committed to writing about climate change this October 15, 2009 on Twitter@GOsustainably and @blogactionday.

----------------------------------------

This Climate of Change blog launched 74 days before the kickoff of the Copenhagen Climate Conference known as COP15. It includes daily entries forming a count down to what some are calling the most important meeting in human history.

It has rapidly grown to include artists from around the world, sustainability activists, and concerned individuals getting involved. It's goal, along with that of GOsustainably, is to serve as a hub of COP15 related, awareness-building and leader-influencing efforts.

RIGHT: Featured "Creative Contra Climate Change," Michael Pinsky (thanks to Akkuppa).

Climate of Change welcomes contributions from journalists, artists, organizations and individuals who are speaking out about climate change and communicating to leaders the importance of signing a robust and binding accord at COP15. Please submit your entries now to be featured before the conference.

Remember my confession, that I love a cozy fire, sultry jazz on a cold night? Well, nestled in my new apartment, on the coldest night so far this autumn, I swallowed my inner climate activist and put a purportedly "eco" log in the fireplace.

7:20 pm - Stifled voices rising in my throat and questions poking me. What could be more wasteful? I pay money for dust from a ground up tree, mixed with (albeit recycled/renewable) wax; throw it in a cement cavity in the wall; put a match to it and watch. My money and the tree transform to soot. The smoke--laced with greenhouse gases, particles of airborne garbage, and hazardous pollutants--curls up the chimney and out to taint the beautiful, black sky.

7:25 pm - In my case, invisible wisps of the smoke also come into my living room, giving me an immediate headache. (Or is that from the climate activist guilt of indulging in a fire?)

7:30 pm - RRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAA. Fire alarm. It's not (just) guilt! I open a couple of windows, notice the log has not started burning too much, and decide to forfeit the whole venture. A glass of water poured ritualistically over the log, with a silent nod to the tree gods, puts it out. I spend the evening thus, cozy-ied up on the couch with Alain de Botton's, "Pleasures and Sorrows of Work." The log merely sits, charred and silent, with out another flap of its orange tongue (or puff of carbon emission) for the remainder of the evening. Instead, a few candles make a mediocre substitute for the missing ambiance.

11:30 pm - Candles blown out, teeth brushed, I hit the sack.

(DREAMY PAUSE...)

4:30 am - Abruptly, my partner and I are delivered instantaneously out of our respective dreams by screeching fire alarms and onto our feet. I throw open the door. (Did I think to feel it first? No! So much for grade-school fire safety training.) Smoke so thick I can not see across the living room. We are in a flurry of cursing; scrambling for cell phones, shoes and clothes; holding our breath to run across the living room and open windows. We make for the door running as I'm dialing 911.

5:30 am - The two fire trucks and heroic fire fighters are gone, having transferred an (apparently smoldering for hours) eco log to a stainless bowl full of water out on the balcony, and aired out all the smoke. Johnnie and I sit dazed on the sofa in the lobby.

The coming days will include: carpet and upholstery shampooing ($300), wall and surface scrubbing ($150), air fresheners and cleaning products (each with its own unique combination of toxic and nontoxic ingredients); headaches, sore throats, achy lungs and stinging eyes; immense gratitude for the fire alarms that probably saved our lives; new-found appreciation for firefighters and the gift they give our communities; a smokey scent that will not leave our bodies, books, walls nor the insides of our noses; and a lingering question.

If five minutes and the corner of an eco log can do this much damage, what does all the world's wood burning do?

Levine, Cofer, Cahoon and Winstead, in Biomass Burning: A driver for global change, estimate that 1,430 Tg of wood fuel are burned yearly. After some searching about on the Web I learned that Tg means teragram. Using a handy conversion tool, I learned that the relatively benign sounding (at least to the untrained ear) 1,430 Tg is equivalent to 3,152,610,349,000 pounds of wood fuel burned annually in the world.

So, as I was saying:

If five minutes and the corner of an eco log can do this much damage, what does burning three trillion pounds of wood per year do? (How many cords of wood would that be?!)

Reading more about biomass (living and non-living vegetable matter) burning, I learn that 45% of those 3 trillion pounds are made up of carbon. When burned, the carbon releases carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and nonmethane hydrocarbons-and particulate or elemental carbon.

Therefore:

If five minutes and the corner of an eco log can do this much damage, what does burning three trillion pounds of wood per year do?

I'll tell you: It releases 1,410,958,478,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and nonmethane hydrocarbons-and particulate or elemental carbon.

I want to have a fire in the hearth, for a cozy evening. But, I'm haunted by the trillion and a heal tons of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and nonmethane hydrocarbons-and particulate or elemental carbon. I want to have a fire in the hearth for a cozy evening, but this knowledge kinda ruins the mood anyway.

I'm a romantic. I like cinnamon candles, a cozy fire in the hearth, Diane Krall on the stereo and a nip of port. BUT WHAT ABOUT MY GOAL OF REDUCING MY CARBON EMISSIONS BY 10% IN 2010?

Worried about the implications, I did a little searching and at the very least found what appears to be a lower-emissions option. Helen Suh MacIntosh, Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard University, opines on Treehugger that an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional firewood are renewable wax and sawdust composite logs (like Javalogs and Duraflame). Duraflame claims to use 80% less resources than natural wood logs, be made of 100% recycled / renewable materials and create 80% less particulate matter, 75% less carbon monoxide and 90% less hazardous pollutants. Java Logs are made from coffee grounds!! Their website says they burn brighter / hotter than sawdust logs, and producing 85% less carbon monoxide than conventional wood logs.

Against my own better judgment and rabble rousing, maybe once or twice a year, I could consider this approach? It might meet my need for mood on a rainy, winter night in San Francisco, while I tap out my Climate of Change post for the day.

Ah, the unbearable hypocrisy of contradicting desires. What to do when one's internal romantic faces off with her counter-part climate advocate?

Thank you, Alex, for the comment. Here's one way to make a windmill work. William Kamkwamba, of Milawi, powered his village at age 14.

Alternatively, this one's for sale for under $500. Description on from Sunforce reads, "The Sunforce 44444 400 Watt Wind Generator uses wind to generate power and run your appliances and electronics. Constructed from lightweight, weatherproof cast aluminum, this generator is also a great choice for powering pumps or charging batteries for large power demands. With a maximum power up to 400 watts or 27 amps, this device features a fully integrated regulator that automatically shuts down when the batteries are completely charged. The 44444 is virtually maintenance free with only two moving parts, and the carbon fiber composite blades ensure low wind noise while the patented high wind over speed technology guarantees a smooth, clean charge. Assembly is required, but this generator installs easily and mounts to any sturdy pole, building, or the Sunforce 44455 Wind Generator 30-Foot Tower Kit. The 44444 uses a 12-volt battery (not included) and measures 15 x 9 x 27 inches (WxHxD)."

As I mentioned in my last entry, the EPA tells us that the average household in the US generates a whopping 16,290 pounds (what does that look like?!) of carbon emissions annually from electricity usage alone.

Where else do a household's emissions originate? Home heating and waste. The EPA says:

During the winter, many people rely upon furnaces or boilers to heat their homes. Most furnaces and boilers burn fossil fuels such as heating oil or natural gas, which emit greenhouse gases. The amount of emissions can vary by fuel, furnace or boiler efficiency and by the temperature setting in the home.

Most people don't realize that the trash they throw away leads to emissions of greenhouse gases. Each pound of trash you throw away will emit approximately 0.94 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent in the form of methane, and the average person in the U.S. throws away over 1,130 pounds of waste per year. For every person in the U.S., about 1,060 pounds of CO2 equivalent comes from the garbage we throw out every year.

So, perhaps more realistic than installing a windmill, I figure I could make simple changes and cut my waste in half. In the coming days I will monitor my own trash and see where I could reduce it.

I'll leave you with closing words from the EPA:

The goods we throw away require energy to create and by recycling some of those goods you can save energy and minimize emissions. In most cases it takes more energy to create a new product than it takes to produce something from a recycled good. By recycling more we can minimize the waste we send to landfills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The average recycling rate for the United States is 30.6%. If the recycling rate increased to 35%, greenhouse gas emissions from waste could be reduced by 67 pounds of CO2 equivalent per person.

More than 365 landfills in the U.S. recover the methane from their landfills and use it to produce electricity or heat. These projects help businesses and communities protect the environment and build a sustainable future. EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) is a voluntary assistance and partnership program that promotes the use of landfill gas as a renewable, green energy source.

After signing the 10:10 agreement (thereby promising to reduce my own carbon emissions by 10% in 2010), I measured my carbon footprint to confirm the dismal reality that (directly related to the fact that I use more than my share of planet earth's resources) my lifestyle creates more carbon emissions than the earth can bear. As such, dear reader, you find me now in a mad search to understand how to reduce my carbon emissions.

All of this is critical, because I--along with a growing* number of others around the world--am committed to clean air, reasonably predictable weather, island nations, intact ancient glaciers and a lot less skin cancer. (*In the first 48 hours of its launch in the UK, 10:10 signed on 10,000 people.) Although my reducing my carbon emissions alone won't have much of an impact, if I and the tens of thousands of others who have signed do so, that is more significant. On top of that, if we're bothering to pay attention to how much carbon we're emitting, we'll probably recognize it's in our best interest to convince our climate ministers and presidents to attend COP15 this December to sign a legally binding agreement, as strong as science demands, to keep climate change in check. As more of us take this simple step and sign--and meet--our 10:10 promise, we will pressure our governments and businesses to switch to non-polluting, renewable energy sources. On a terribly selfish note, I don't want to give up the occasional international trip. So I've got to find other ways to dramatically cut my own emissions that doesn't require my eliminating all air travel. Otherwise, it'll be sail boats and trains to India for me, which doesn't sound half-bad, but would be rather time-intensive.

Back to my quest to reduce my carbon emissions by 10% in 2010. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says:

In the United States , approximately 4 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (almost 9,000 pounds) per person per year (about 17% of total U.S. emissions) are emitted from people's homes. The three main sources of greenhouse gas emissions from homes are electricity use, heating and waste. Emissions from electricity generation occur at the power plants that supply your electricity. In the U.S. , greenhouse gas emissions associated with home electricity use are about twice those associated with heating. The greenhouse gases associated with waste from your home occur at the landfill that receives your garbage.
It goes on to say that the average household's CO2 emissions from electricity in the US are 7.4 metric tons per year, or 16,290 lbs.

Of course, if your power comes from coal-generation, the EPA reminds us that our emissions will be well above average. Similarly, renewably generated power (hail the windmills on Livermore pass!) amount to much, much less.

The wind whistles fiercely through the shabby, sliding glass door in my apartment every night as the fog rolls over the hills of San Francisco. Needless to say, the thought has crossed my mind that I might install a windmill on my balcony. If I could generate all my own electricity, then surely I could afford one journey to a foreign land per year?
More on this soon!

And now, on a personal note...

I've signed these petitions:

Seal the Deal
Climate 350
OXFAM Climate
10:10 Global

The last of which (the 10:10) is a commitment to reduce my own carbon emissions in 2010 by 10%. In honor of tomorrow being 10/10 day (the tenth of October), I want to take a fearless and honest inventory of my carbon emissions--and then make a plan with concrete things I can do to reach my 10% reduction goal for 2010.

I thought I'd bring you, kind reader and climate activist (act being the operative part of the latter word), with me. Who knows? Maybe you'll follow along and do it too? (If you do, please share your results in the comments!)

First, I need to understand what my carbon emissions are. I'm beginning at Global Footprint Network. They joined with Free Range Studios (home of the Story of Stuff, a must-see video) to make a graphically pleasing and scientifically sound environmental footprint monitor.

I went through a series of questions, with catchy graphics and copywriting, (in less than 7 minutes) and determined that I use way more than my fair share of planet earth. In fact, if everyone used as much as I do, we'd need at least 5 earths. Since we only have one, something's gotta be done. (I'm eating more than my 1/6 billionth of the pie--and I'm creating 24.2 TONS OF CARBON doing it.)

Good thing I've agreed to reduce my carbon emissions by 10% in 2010. I'm going to need to reduce it a lot more than that ASAP. (It doesn't have to be this painful, either. Business and government can make it easy on us, via producer take back programs, zero-emissions goals and non-nuclear, clean, renewable energy development! We might even end up needing to work less, if we're using so much less stuff. That would mean more time for family, friends, art, dancing...Alas, I digress.)

Next I used the calculator's reduction wizard, to identify ways to reduce my emissions. It seems, that I'm half way there if I eat fewer animal products, purchase products that use less packaging or are made out of recycled material or stay local instead of flying. I will eliminate chicken (and hope chicken farms are converted to organic produce and wind farms). I will get my shampoos and lotions from Rainbow Grocery, where you fill your own bottles from their bulk bins.

Air travel--the biggest culprit for most of us in the U.S.--is hard to give up, when my work occasionally depends upon it and my passion for international adventure requires it. (Maybe I could get a bicycle and head for Guanajuato?!) I'll have to think on this one.... None of this sounds too fun, so I'll do it to survive, but I'll be damned if big business gets to continue burning fossil fuel and over-consuming if I don't! More on *that* later.

Tomorrow I'll continue to explore other options on how to reduce my emissions 10% via Chris Goodall's article in the UK's Guardian.

Around the world, artists join with individuals, organizations, government and business to raise awareness about and fight global climate change. Featured artists, Ben Heine, Sorby Rock and R Piker come to us from Belgium, England and Australia respectively. Each brings a unique, yet urgent, perspective to the issue of climate change.

Please visit GOsustainably to see more of their outstanding work!

If you'd like your climate change related work to be featured, send an explanation and a link to your art.

Around the world, individuals, organizations, businesses and goverments are joining forces to minimize climate change and mitigate the disasters in its wake.

What is Climate of Change?

This Climate of Change blog launched 74 days before the kickoff of the Copenhagen Climate Conference known as COP15. It includes daily entries forming a count down to what some are calling the most important meeting in human history.

It has rapidly grown to include artists from around the world, sustainability activists, and concerned individuals getting involved. It's goal, along with that of GOsustainably, is to serve as a hub of COP15 related, awareness-building and leader-influencing efforts.

What's the Rush?

"Those who lead us have no excuse -- they are elected to guide, to protect the public and its best interests. Only in the past few years did the science crystallize, revealing the urgency. Our planet is in peril. If we do not change course, we'll hand our children a situation that is out of their control. One ecological collapse will lead to another, in amplifying feedbacks." - Dr. James E. Hansen of Columbia University

What is COP15?

COP15 is a multi-nation climate conference, which will be held it Copenhagen, Denmark this December. It's objective? To reach a fair and binding accord to control carbon emissions and mitigate for climate change. It must be as strong as the world's top climate scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deem necessary to prevent catastrophic climate devastation. Specifically, the goal is to keep emissions under 350 parts per million (350) and global temperatures from rising more than 3.6F (2.0C) degrees above pre-industrial levels.

Presently the most ambitious plans of wealthy nations do not meet the IPCC's recommendations. The objective of GOsustainably, Climate of Change, 10:10 Global, Climate 350, TckTckTck, Kofi Annan's Musical Petition, and many others is to advance the agenda of the IPCC at COP15 to ensure a fair and binding agreement that puts the world's greatest carbon emitters responsible for making the greatest cuts.

What Can You Do?

Climate of Change welcomes contributions from journalists, artists, organizations and individuals who are speaking out about climate change and communicating to leaders the importance of signing a robust and binding accord at COP15. Please submit your entries now to be featured before the conference.

China? Still using that tired excuse for not getting on the reverse-climate-change band wagon? It's time to get informed and get on board. The Briefing on China's National Climate Change Programme explains their plan simply and succinctly.

"Climate change is high on China's agenda. Our head of government, Premier Wen Jiabao, is heading the National Leading Group on Climate Change, with 17 ministers as members. China is making efforts to integrate climate change considerations into national socio-economic development programs. In June this year, after years of preparation and efforts, China published its National Program to address climate change, which falls squarely within the implementation of Article 4.1 of the UNFCCC." - Su Wei, Director-General Office of National Leading Group on Climate Change.

The head of government in China, Premier Wen Jiabao, is heading the National Leading Group on Climate Change, with 17 ministers as members. China is integrating climate change considerations into national socio-economic development via its National Program to address climate change.

China's per capita CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2004 are 3.65 tons, about 33% of that of OECD countries. The CO2 emission intensity per unit GDP is generally on a declining trend, with a decrease of 49.5% in 2004 as compared to1990, while only 16.1% for OECD countries. Thus far, economic restructuring and energy efficiency have resulted in 1,800 Mt 2CO2 reduced emissions from 1990 to 2005 via:

• Low-carbon and renewable energy to optimize the energy mix, which increased the share of renewable energy in the total energy consumption to 7.5% (380 Mt CO2 emissions avoided)
• Afforestation, forest management and deforestation avoidance (5,110
• Mt CO2 emissions avoided from 1980 to 2005)
• Controlling population growth, which avoided over 300 million births by 2005 (1,300 Mt CO2 emissions avoided in 2005 alone)

But what of the coal fired power plants still being developed in China, you ask? China has committed to control GHG emissions by 2010 and:

• Reduce energy consumption per unit GDP by 20%


• Increase the share of renewable energy to 10%


• Stabilize nitrous oxide emissions from industrial processes at 2005 level


• Control the growth of methane emissions


• Increase the forest coverage rate to 20%


• Increase carbon sink by 50 million tons over 2005 level

What have you asked your government to do? (Comment here!)

Despite the barrage of disheartening climate news, times are hopeful.

The US has begun to show greater commitment to curbing climate change. (Waxman-Markey bill says we should reduce emissions by 73% by 2020.) Similarly, yet a surprise to some, China's lead Negotiator Su Wei, says, "China will not continue with out capping emissions in China. If we did the earth would be ruined."

If you are having trouble envisioning how we can keep emissions from going above 350 parts per million (the upper carbon limit as defined by IPCC), this may help:

Andrew Jones of the Sustainability Institute at Sustainer uses a simulation he and others created to tell a story of hope and possibility for addressing climate change, using an approach developed at MIT.

The interactive simulator, C-ROADS, has been scientifically reviewed, is being used by the U.S. State Department, and is available on the web at Climate Interactive.

We're not screwed YET, as long as we convince world leaders to sign a binding and robust accord (per IPCC scientist recommendations) this December in Copenhagen. Sign the Greenpeace International petition to join the 58,600+ others who have already signed.

This clever piece of Yes Men activism was distributed across NY on September 22, 2009 by over 2,000 supporters. Although a hoax, climate experts and editors cross-verified every fact as true. (Here's the real report from NY City.) The associated Web site provides the full articles and recommended next steps for taking action against global climate change.

If you know of another petition we should sign, post it in your comments here.

Join 15,000+ others

Insist world leaders seal the deal this December in Copenhagen

SIGN THE PETITION URGING A FAIR AND BINDING RESOLUTION.

Blogging in this Climate of Change? Join Blog Action Day.

Climate of Change is a blog dedicated to those fighting climate change. Every day more people are getting involved. Do you have ideas on how to wake one another up to the urgency? Tell us how. Use the comment section or email us. We will post your efforts here at Climate of Change http://74days.gosustainably.com.

Our Objective: Build an undeniable case that compels President Obama and world leaders to sign--and fulfill--an agreement Dec 7, 2009 in Copenhagen. The agreement should be for nothing less than what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommends. (The IPCC is made of the world's top, nobel-prize winning, scientists. They recommend 90% reduction of emissions below 1990 levels, by 2050.)

Top notch campaigns for action at Copenhagen:

1. tcktcktck.org Bringing together celebrities and artists to build a pop campaign that drives home the urgency of signing a viable agreement at the Copenhagen Climate Conference.

2. 1010uk.org Place where individuals and businesses can sign a personal commitment to reduce their own carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.
3. notstupid.com Website associated with docudrama on the urgency of curbing climate change and signing at Copenhagen.

This Climate of Change blog may be used as a hub, where the public can catch a glimpse of a rapidly growing world-wide movement to wake up world leaders to the urgency of Copenhagen. Some are calling the COP15 conference the most important meeting in human history. It may be the culminating moment in which humans choose to promote or turn-around climate change. Those involved in this movement understand the urgency and are doing all they can to incite those around them to take positive action right now. Join us!

In the next 66 days, we have a choice. We can go on with our lives, as we always do. Or we can do something fast and turn things around. To curb climate change, we must convince our world leaders to sign--and fulfill--an agreement at the Copenhagen Climate Conference (or "COP15"). It's up to us to let them know that we demand nothing less.

Climate of Change is one place to start. Take a step. Then document what you've done here. Give the movement a push and show others how you've done it. You can make an impact with a tweet and a Facebook status message, or a sign in your window and a phone call to President Obama. Be a part of the public outcry.

This is certainly the most important, and may become the most rapidly growing, global movement of our times. It's a movement that says, "Care about Copenhagen. Don't resign: SIGN!" It's up to us to let our nations' leaders know that we demand nothing less for ourselves, our children and grandchildren, the planet, our future. Politicians will respond to the people. But the people must speak up to be heard!

If you're there, give a shout out. Let us know what you care about.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule 9/28/09 to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions from thousands of power plants and large industrial facilities. Here's a summary of the highlights from the NY Times article, "E.P.A. Moves to Curtail Greenhouse Gas Emissions," by John M. Broder.

Would require construction and operating permits for facilities emitting at least 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide and five other climate-altering pollutants per year.

By virtue of addressing only emitters of over 25k tons of carbon annually bakeries, dry cleaners, farms, small businesses and apartment buildings are exempt.

U.S. Senators John F. Kerry and Barbara Boxer climate change and energy legislation also 9/28/09.

U.S. President Obama's administration plans to reduce global warming with or without a Congressional mandate.

By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation's largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy. This is a common-sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources -- those from sectors responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions sources. - Lisa P. Jackson, E.P.A. Administrator

If you'd like to usher these changes in:

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has said we may have to wait until 2010 until creating binding climate legislation. Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, advocates against controlling carbon emissions as long as there are other harmful chemicals also not being controlled by the EPA.