Save Five Lives, Save $142

Edmunds recently tested tips for improving fuel efficiency. Some of these tips (stop driving like a maniac; drive the speed limit) could reduce your gasoline consumption by at least 10%. So if you drive 12,000 miles per year and averaged around 25 miles per gallon, you would have burned 480 gallons of gas. If you reduced this by 48 gallons, at $4 per gallon you’ve saved $192. Of course you still burned 432 gallons of gas, and this means you contributed 4.19 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. The IPCC estimates that the "social cost" of a ton of CO2 is $12, so you have caused a total of about $50 worth of damage.

If you feel bad about this I suppose you could buy $50 worth of carbon offsets. But I’d like you to consider something else. Global warming may increase the incidence of malaria, which already kills around one million people a year. Nothingbutnets.net has started a campaign to raise awareness and get bed nets to people in areas where the mosquito borne disease is found. So you can donate that $50 and buy five nets, which could easily save the lives of five people. (Donating to Save the Children is a good option too). And you can still pocket the $142 left in savings.

One million lives a year is about two per minute. So two people died while you were reading this. But now, by changing some of your driving habits, you can

Reduce your “carbon footprint”
Save $142
Save five lives

The only thing better than a “win-win”…is a “win-win-win.”

Astrolab Revisited

After checking their website, it seems that calling this a solar powered car is a tad misleading. The solar panels give enough power to take you 18 km, or 11 miles. So if you have a commute longer than that you need to plug it in at night to charge the battery, which gives the bulk of the 110 km range (68 miles). It uses nickel hydride batteries. Lithium ion would give more storage but I guess they have not figured out how to dissipate the heat yet (they can explode at high temperature).

And it still seems to lack a windshield. I don't know why.

Not One Thin Dime for Gas!

You wouldn't feel any pain at the pump if you had a solar powered car. And you can have one now for only $117,000. By the looks of it you can only take one passenger and neither of you will have much leg room. I'm guessing there isn't a lot you can put in the trunk (if it has one). And it might not get top scores in government crash tests. But maybe these will be much more practical and affordable five or ten years down the road.

With Venturi's Astrolab, solar cars have moved beyond the plaything of engineering students and tech geeks into the hands of ordinary consumers.

The manufacturer claims the two-seater Astrolab can reach top cruising speeds of 75 mph and has a potential driving range of 68 miles. Along with no gas bills, the car aims at the simple but revolutionary math of zero fossil fuel consumption and zero carbon dioxide emissions. That is news to make the heart of the tightwad or the environmentalist grow warm.

The car works by combining four key pieces of technology: an ultra-light auto body constructed from carbon monocoque, a sleek aerodynamic shape to minimize wind resistance, photovoltaic cells coated by a film of nano-prisms to concentrate solar energy, and rechargeable NiMH batteries. The price tag for this technological wonder? Approximate manufactures' suggested retail price is a cool $117,000.

Global warming effects: A Decrease in Hurricanes?

A new study, from NOAA, says that we may actually see fewer hurricanes in the coming decades.

The new research suggests that the number of hurricanes
each summer could decrease by about 18 percent.

Major hurricanes—those with winds in excess of 110 miles (177 kilometers) an hour—could decline by about 8 percent.

Currently about ten Atlantic hurricanes form—two to three of them major—during an average season, which runs from June 1 to November 30.

One of the ways that global warming could reduce hurricanes is by increasing upper-level winds—known as wind shear—that can inhibit hurricane formation, said lead author Thomas Knutson.

Read the article at National Geographic.

Solar bra brings conservation closer to the heart

I've read lots of interesting ideas on how we can help save the Earth, but this one is quite unusual:

"Ladies, take your battle for the environment a little closer to your heart with a solar-powered bra that can generate enough electric energy to charge a mobile phone or an iPod.

Lingerie maker Triumph International Japan Ltd unveiled its environmentally friendly, and green colored, "Solar Power Bra" on Wednesday in Tokyo which features a solar panel worn around the stomach."

Super MoneyMaker Pump

While "hi-tech" developments are always interesting to read about, sometimes a "low-tech" device can have a big impact. A $100 pump can be used on small farms to help them bring in an extra $1000 profit each year. This could be a great help to farmers in Third World countries that are trying to work their way out of poverty. The pump is by KickStart. Read about it here also.

Save the squirrels, or save the Earth?

I had told a coworker recently that maybe solar panels will cover the southwest US one day and supply most of our energy needs. Unless of course someone finds some endangered species out in the desert somewhere that needs protection. Then I come across an item in Reason about a meeting of governors, including Mr. Schwarzenegger, who had this to share:

The biggest applause line of the day came when the seven-time Mr. Olympia turned the tables on political conventional wisdom about who is hurting the environment and who is helping. "It's not always Republicans" or big corporations, he said, that slow environmental progress. Several companies want to build solar power plants in the Mojave Desert. However, the place where they want to build may be the kind of territory that a particular kind of endangered squirrel would prefer to frequent. Efforts by the California Department of Fish and Game ("my own agency, that I'm supposed to be the head of and the boss of!") to protect "this little creature" have thwarted plans to build planet-saving solar arrays. "If we can't put a solar power plant in the Mojave Desert," Schwarzenegger thundered, "I don't know where the hell we can put it!"

The Upside and Downside of Biology

It seems that biofuels are falling out of favor as a "green" fuel. Land that was once used to grow food is now being used to grow biofuel crops. With the price of food rising and food riots being reported, that seems like a bad idea.

Also, if that was not enough:

A recent study found that growing crops to make biofuels may actually accelerate global warming, because clearing forests or grasslands gives off substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas that fuels climate change.

However, there may be some biofuel crops that don't require arable land. Jatropha is one that will grow "on marginal or degraded land where not much else will really grow." The plant is pictured above.

While jatropha is a "natural" plant, we may seem some "unnatural," or genetically modified plants, finally being accepted to solve the growing food problem: GM corn is being bought in Asia.

Genetically modified crops that are disease resistant or drought tolerant could provide an alternative to alleviate the global stress.

"I think it's pretty clear that price and supply concerns have people thinking a little bit differently today," Steve Mercer with the U.S. Wheat Associates told the Times.

The re-evaluation comes as riots were reported in bread lines in Egypt and other regions, European livestock face critical feed shortages and biofuels strain the market.

Balls and Cubes

Solar cells. Fuel cells. They may be the shape of things to come. But some shapes are better than others, apparently.

It was found recently that a "popcorn-ball" design has increased the efficiency of dye-sensitized solar cells. They are cheaper, but only half as efficient, as existing solar technology. A group at the University of Washington has been working on this. They used a mixture of small (15 nanometers) and large (300 nanometers) particles of zinc oxide, and found an increase in efficiency, from 2.4 percent using only small particles to 6.2 percent with the combination. The next step is to do it with titanium oxide, which currently gives an 11% efficiency, and see how much of an increase can be achieved with that material. Read about it here.

While ball shapes are good for solar cells, apparently you want your fuel cells in a cubic shape according to researchers at Brown.

Two great obstacles to hydrogen-powered vehicles lie with fuel cells. Fuel cells, which like batteries produce electrical power through chemical reactions, have been plagued by their relatively low efficiency and high production costs. Scientists have tested a wide assortment of metals and materials to overcome the twin challenge.

Now a team led by Shouheng Sun, professor of chemistry at Brown, has mastered a Rubik’s Cube-like dilemma for dealing with platinum, a precious metal coveted for its ability to boost a chemical reaction in fuel cells. The team shows that shaping platinum into a cube greatly enhances its efficiency in a phase of the fuel cell’s operation known as oxygen reduction reaction. Sun’s results have been published online in the journal Angewandte Chemie. The paper was selected as a Very Important Paper, a distinction reserved for less than 5 percent of manuscripts submitted to the peer-reviewed journal.

This brings us another step closer to the future as envisioned by Ray Kurzweil. By the way, I came across a talk by him he gave at a TED conference, here.

U.S. Carbon Tax Swap

And here I thought I had such a neat idea, when someone else already thought of it, and did a pretty in depth analysis of it: enact a carbon tax, along with a cut in the payroll tax. The tax cut is used to counter the regressive nature of the carbon tax (the tax cut is progressive), as well as to avoid hurting economic growth. Read the paper by Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf here.

Fuel Tax Offset by Tax Cuts

It looks like all the remaining presidential contenders favor a cap-and-trade system for limiting CO2 emissions. This is about good politics, not good policy, as most economists seem to agree that a carbon tax is the way to go. I don't like tax increases, but was thinking that a carbon tax could be good if it a) was set at the "right" amount, and b) was imposed along with a cut in income taxes, so it would be a "wash" for the typical tax payer. The carbon tax would encourage the conservation of finite resources and development of other, non-carbon energy sources, and a lower income tax would be good for economic growth. The "right" amount, which would equal the economic damage done by a ton of CO2, is likely around $14 per ton, according to Bjorn Lomborg and the IPCC report. This would be equivalent to an increase of 14 cents per gallon of gasoline.

Well it looks like Canada is going this route come July. The 2.4 cents per liter of gas actually seems a bit low, and the 7.2 cents in 2012 seems high, but they seem to be in the right ballpark. I do wonder how they came up with the amount of the tax cut. Have they considered how higher energy costs may drive up the costs of some products, and be passed on to the consumer?

Solar Power to Rule in 20 Years

There has been more and more talk about renewable energy sources being needed, in order to cut CO2 emissions from burning coal and oil. Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology discussed solar energy in that book, and still believes it is the future source for our energy needs. From LiveScience:

Solar and wind power currently supply about 1 percent of the world's energy needs, Kurzweil said, but advances in technology are about to expand with the introduction of nano-engineered materials for solar panels, making them far more efficient, lighter and easier to install. Google has invested substantially in companies pioneering these approaches.

Regardless of any one technology, members of the panel are "confident that we are not that far away from a tipping point where energy from solar will be [economically] competitive with fossil fuels," Kurzweil said, adding that it could happen within five years.

The reason why solar energy technologies will advance exponentially, Kurzweil said, is because it is an "information technology" (one for which we can measure the information content), and thereby subject to the Law of Accelerating Returns.

The 1% figure is a bit misleading. The US in 2006 got 0.7% from wind and only 0.1% from solar. But that still projects to 100% for solar, if it continues to double at the current rate.

Wide spread use of solar isn't something we'll see anytime soon. But, some interesting new technology is being developed that should make them more cost effective. How about printing them?

Massachusetts-based Konarka Technologies, Inc, a company with a healthy history of commercial experience, developed and demonstrated a commercial-grade process for printing cells on inkjet printers. All quips about inkjet cartridge costs aside, the new process holds tremendous potential to revolutionize the solar photovoltaic industry.

Typical photovoltaics require a clean room to maintain the delicate manufacturing conditions necessary in order to carry out silicon spin coating and other steps in the manufacturing process. These clean rooms are extremely expensive to build and maintain. While traditional photovoltaics can be profitable, Konarka's inkjet phtovoltaics promise to dramatically lower their cost, making solar power suddenly very competitive in terms of energy production per installation cost. Better yet, it will likely reduce the time it takes to produce the cells and allow for easier expansion of capacity.

Interesting times may be ahead.

Save the Children Sponsorship

Just as I was finishing up reading Cool It, I got mail from Save the Children. I've been a supporter of their work for a few years now. They were offering a reduced rate to sponsor a child: $18 per month, instead of the usual $28. Well, here was an opportunity to help people in the Third World right now (rather than decades from now), and at a bargain price too. I've become the sponsor of Shaymaa, a nine year old girl in Egypt. In the packet they sent to me was a sobering summary of the area she lives in:

Malnourishment is 37%, and intestinal worm infection is nearly 30% for children under 5 years old. School enrollment drops in the primary level to 15%, especially among girls. Agricultural activity is practiced by 89% of the population. Illiteracy is about 65% and percentage of university education is nearly 7%.

She is in primary school right now, so I guess she is one of the lucky ones who doesn't end up out of school and working the family farm. I hope that, with a little help from me, she can continue her education and have a brighter future. I've just sent her an e-mail, but I'm told it may be months before I get a reply from her. When I do I'll post it here.

The Most Bang for the Buck?

Developing nations will need $86 billion annually to adapt to climate change, according to the UN. If they don't get it, they aren't going along with any new treaty to cut CO2 emissions.

A few years ago, a study found that six million children could be saved every year for around $5 billion. We still see almost ten million children die every year from preventable and treatable causes. Why not spend a small amount of money now to save millions, instead of a much larger amount to deal with what might happen years from now?

If China and India don't change their ways soon, it really won't matter if these other developing nations participate or not. And maybe freer trade would advance the developing world more in the long run, rather than protectionism and hand outs.

Deadly Snow in China

China, the Middle East, and parts of North America saw some very heavy snow fall this winter. At least 24 people died in China because of it. Global temperature dropped about one degree over the past year. So does this mean global cooling has begun?

Anytime we see an unusual weather event or high temperatures, someone always attributes it to global warming. Those events could just be a fluke of course, but that explanation won't sell as many newspapers or get your attention while channel surfing. From National Geographic:

Well-known global warming doubter Robert Balling, a climatologist at Arizona State University, is guarded in his response to the unusual weather.

"While the trend is surprising, given no volcanic eruption [occurred to block sunlight and cause a global cool-down], I doubt the trend is statistically significant at this time," he commented.

"We both know that if we had seen a jump upward [in temperature], the global warming advocates would have had a field day," he added. "I find the skeptics to be far more cautious."

China CO2 Emissions Growing Faster Than Anticipated

A few months ago I read in POWER Magazine, a trade publication, how China has passed the US in carbon emissions, and that if the Congress decided to go with a cap-and-trade program as the way to combat climate change, it would be putting the country at an economic disadvantage:

It’s time we realized that coal combustion will be increasing in China and India for decades to come. If we spend trillions over those same decades to reduce our CO2 emissions in ways that drive up power costs, the only guaranteed outcome is that China and India are going to eat more of our economic lunch.

Now National Geographic is confirming this:

China's greenhouse gas emissions are rising much faster than expected and will overshadow the cuts in global emissions expected due to the Kyoto Protocol, according to a new study.

China and India have a combined 700 coal fired plants in the works, a figure that dwarfs what the US will be adding. Cutting emissions in the States won't help much in reducing global levels if this continues. Perhaps adapting to climate change is better than trying to stabilize CO2.

5 Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit

When we burn oil (or the gasoline that comes from it) we are producing CO2, which has been linked to global warming. But we also, according to some, are supporting terrorists:

In a speech last year, former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr. had some advice for American motorists: "The next time you pull into a gas station to fill your car with gas, bend down a little and take a glance in the side-door mirror. . . . What you will see is a contributor to terrorism against the United States." Woolsey is known as a conservative, but plenty of liberals have also eagerly adopted the mantra that America's foreign oil purchases are funding terrorism.

But the hype doesn't match reality. Remember, the two largest suppliers of crude to the U.S. market are Canada and Mexico -- neither exactly known as a belligerent terrorist haven.

Robert Bryce is a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research. Read about his views on energy independence here. Just a few things to keep in mind, while we hear more hype on the subject from the candidates this election year. Reason has a good interview with him here.

Global warming 'may cut deaths'

Lomborg pointed out that we need to look at the effects of any change in climate, cooling or warming, and weigh both the damages and benefits. We don't hear much about the number of cold related deaths, and how they can be expected to drop in a warmer world.

A seriously hot summer between now and 2017 could claim more than 6,000 lives, the Department of Health report warns.

But it also stresses that milder winters mean deaths during this time of year - which far outstrip heat-related mortality - will continue to decline.

The report is to help health services prepare for climate change effects.

A panel of scientific experts commissioned by the Department of Health and Health Protection Agency (HPA) has looked at the way the UK has responded to rising temperatures since the 1970s, and how the risks are likely to change.

While summers in the UK became warmer in the period 1971 - 2003, there was no change in heat-related deaths, but annual cold-related mortality fell by 3% as winters became milder - so overall fewer people died as a result of extreme temperatures.

Read the whole piece here.

Adapt to Climate Change

Lomborg isn't the only one saying that "it would be easier and cheaper to adapt than fight climate change." Critics fear Greenland will melt though, as it did in a movie.

The disastrous hurricanes of recent years have become the poster children of global warming.

But Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental policy expert at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wondered whether the billions of dollars of damage was caused by more intense storms or more coastal development.

After analyzing decades of hurricane data, Pielke concluded that rising levels of carbon dioxide had little to do with hurricane damage. Rather, it boiled down to a simple equation: Build more, lose more.

"Everything has been put on the back of carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide cannot carry that weight," he said.

Pielke's analysis, published last month in the journal Natural Hazards Review, is part of a controversial movement that argues global warming over the rest of this century will play a much smaller role in unleashing planetary havoc than most scientists think.

His research has led him to believe that it is cheaper and more effective to adapt to global warming than to fight it.

Instead of spending trillions of dollars to stabilize carbon dioxide levels across the planet -- an enormously complex and expensive proposition -- the world could work on reducing hunger, storm damage and disease now, thereby neutralizing some of the most feared future problems of global warming.

Read the whole piece here.

Book Review: Cool It

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg is a short (164 pages, if you don’t count Notes and Index) book, but a thought provoking one. Amid some of the dire predictions of catastrophe we hear and read on this topic, he takes a reasoned look at the problem and makes some worthwhile points. These include:

We have other major issues to deal with, namely HIV, malnutrition and malaria, in the Third World – the very part of the world that could suffer the most from global warming. Yet we have relatively affordable means of addressing these problems right now, rather than what problems they might face decades from now due to climate change.

The catastrophe shown in An Inconvenient Truth – cities disappearing because of a rise in sea level of 20 feet – is not supported by the models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which shows a worst case rise closer to around 2 feet over this century.

Damages due to extreme weather events are increasing, but not because of a proven link between these events and global warming. We have more people living along the coastal regions today, and they have more valuable assets to lose.

Malaria, widespread in tropical areas, was a major health problem in the US at one time, but isn’t any longer. It was eradicated not because of a change in climate, but because of increases in wealth and technology, which made spraying, draining and medical treatment all possible.

While deaths from heat waves will likely increase, a significant number of cold deaths still occur in winter, and these deaths will decrease in a warmer world.

Considering that the Kyoto Protocol was going to bring about at best a very small reduction in green house gas emissions at a rather high cost, we could do more good in the world by spending our money on micronutrients and mosquito nets to save Third World children from dying today, rather than drastic, expensive cuts in CO2 emissions in hope of saving them decades from now. In a world of finite resources and with real problems of this magnitude, we need to get the most bang for our buck. And this book is a good place to start the discussion on how to do that.