A lot goes into making new products; energy, fuel, non organic materials and more. If we buy more items used, we will use less of the things that contribute to hurting God’s planet. Plus, we are being good stewards by making the most of everything we buy and use!

Some things we can buy used:

* movies. what’s the difference, really. used is cheaper, the same and better for the planet.

* music. see above.

* clothes. thrift stores can save you tons of money as well.

* books. buy them used or go to the library.

* cars. how used is up to you.

* furniture and appliances. garage sales and eBay are great places to start.

* homes. old houses are cool anyway.

* household items. there are many items you can pick up at a local good will or garage sale that are just as nice as going to the store and buying new.

* electronics. just be careful and always try it our before you buy.

* bikes. have you ever seen the price tag for a new bike recently. yikes! buy used and ride the bike as often as you can instead of driving. Double green for your trouble! lol.

* video games and systems. places like game stop are great. you can buy used, beat the game and then trade it in for another used game. too cool, right?

* toys. obviously clean and good condition are key here. if you look you can find some goodies. i have found a lot of cute items that my kids love.

As you can see, there are many ways we can help contribute to being good stewards of God’s planet. Including, buying used and spending our money wisely!

Last week, we introduced you to the Resource Matrix, which is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

We showed you how economics leads to people maximizing their benefits in “win-lose” propositions: you want diamonds and gold for nothing and they want to give you useless junk for a king’s ransom. And how we’ve been hypnotized in believing what they want is also what we want.

But the scales have been falling from our eyes, we’re beginning to see the truth, and the power has been shifting away from the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd:

• Do-gooders have increased our awareness and worked to change deals from “win-lose” to “win-win”
• There is no “free lunch:” finite energy resources will run out; actions have consequences, and the consequences of our actions are already visible, rather scary, and quite irreversible; and that the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd hasn’t been telling the truth

We now realize we’re all in this together: we have greater awareness of our actions and the desire to change, and have ways to change.

Hallelujah and Praise the Collective!

Today, we introduce the resource called water, its parallels with fossil fuels, and its role in global warming.

None of this is to dismiss or diminish the contribution of fossil fuels in global warming. Hey, just like the Special Olympics, if you participate, you get a medal. We just think that gold-medal winner Fossil Fuels has stolen the spotlight, letting silver-medalist Water Use keep us hypnotized in believing that water is a free lunch, and that nature will clear up polluted waters while getting away with breaking the rules.

Water, water, everywhere,
not a drop to drink.

According to our friends at How Stuff Works, who I wrote about sarcastically for their oxymoronic clean coal article in discussing how true public relations stuff really works, gives us this data:

• 98% of the planet’s water is in the oceans. It’s salt water - we can’t drink it or irrigate our crops with it.
• 2% is usable. Of that 2%:
  • 80% is locked up in polar ice caps and glaciers
  • 18% is underground in aquifers and wells
  • 1.8% is in lakes and rivers
  • 0.2% is elsewhere: either floating in the air as clouds and water vapor, locked up in plants and animals (and your body), and in foods and beverages.

Okay, so 20% of the usable water (only 0.4% of all water on Earth) is accessible, right?

Well . . . no. Many of the aquifers, wells, lakes, and rivers have been sucked dry like a once-juicy fly carcass in a spider’s web. (The 18% and 1.8% you see above is like the money in the Social Security Fund: there actually is nothing there.)

And many of those water sources that do still have a drop to drink are worse than the ocean’s salt water. Drink salt water and you’ll need to yawn into a bucket. Drink this water and you’ll kick the bucket.

And I know you aren’t asking this burning question:

“So . . . global warming to release fresh water from ice caps and glaciers is a good thing, no?”

Percentage this, percentage that.
Talk my language, will you?

I know I’m pulling the disgusting old government trick: drowning you in an ocean of water statistics.

So let’s make it plain and simple:

You bring in $10,000 a month. You’re also living high on the hog and doing your personal best to outshine every bling-bling Hip Hopster Musical Artist in materially conspicuous consumption:

• $9800 goes to the McMansion mortgage and gold-plated Rolls Royce lease
• $160.00 goes to investments in clothing and accessories
• $0.40 has been lost in the sofa cushions
• $39.60 a month is for everything else: food, phone and electric bills, income taxes, and all the other non-essentials: Don’t spend it all in one place!

Aquifers and wells and lakes and rivers:
Dry or polluted, oh my!

Fred Pearce, author of When the Rivers Run Dry, helps us quickly understand it:

We can all save water in the home. But as laudable as it is to take a shower rather than a bath and turn off the faucet while brushing our teeth, we shouldn’t get hold of the idea that regular domestic water use is what is really emptying the world’s rivers. Manufacturing goods … consumes a certain amount, but that’s not the real story either. It is only when we add in the water needed to grow what we eat and drink that the numbers really begin to soar. (emphasis mine.) (Fred Pearce, When the Rivers Run Dry, Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. p 3)

Here are a few numbers he gives:

• to grow a pound of rice: 250 to 650 gallons of water
• to grow a pound of wheat: 130 gallons
• to produce a quart of milk: 500 to 1000 gallons
• to produce a pound of cheese: 650 gallons
• to produce a 1/4 pound of burger: 3000 gallons

He kindly puts water use into perspective in annual terms:

• 1 ton (265 gallons) for drinking
• 50 to 100 tons (13,250 to 26,500 gallons) around the house
• 1500 to 2000 tons (397,500 to 530,000 gallons) for food and clothing

—————————————–

sidebar:
How Many Gallons to Produce One Pound of Beef?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics

US Beef industry’s Cattlemen’s Association: 441 gallons
Fred Pearce: 12,000 gallons
Water Footprint Network: 1854 gallons (calculations: 15500 litres of water per kg; 4079 gallons per kg; 1854 gallons per pound)

In an industrial beef production system, it takes an average three years before the animal is slaughtered to produce about 200 kg of boneless beef.

The animal consumes nearly 1300 kg of grains (wheat, oats, barley, corn, dry peas, soybean meal and other small grains), 7200 kg of roughages (pasture, dry hay, silage and other roughages), 24 cubic meter of water for drinking and 7 cubic meter of water for servicing.

This means that to produce one kilogram of boneless beef, we use about 6.5 kg of grain, 36 kg of roughages, and 155 litres of water (only for drinking and servicing).

Producing the volume of feed requires about 15300 litres of water on average.

—————————————–

Where does all that water come from?
From virtually everywhere

If it comes from imported goods (Thai rice or Egyptian cotton), the water comes from those countries.

When the water is collected from rivers or pumped from underground, as it is in much of the world, it’s:

• increasingly expensive
• increasingly likely to deprive someone of water (nothing to drink)
• increasingly likely to empty rivers and underground water reserves

And when the rivers are running low, as they are more frequently, there is less water to grow anything at all.

The water used in growing and producing goods around the world is known as “virtual water” and the trade of these goods is known as “virtual water transfers.”

And who’s the biggest water exporting Mouseketeer of them all? The United States.

When you drink coffee from Central America, you are influencing the hydrology of the region, virtually taking a share of the Costa Rican rains. The same is true within a national and regional boundaries. The Colorado River is drained so Californians can eat their Big Macs and have friends over for a Sunday afternoon barbecue.

In the same way that your use of fossil fuel is measured as a “carbon footprint,” your water use, actual and through virtual water transfer, is measured as a “water footprint.”

How big is my water footprint?
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours

Arjen Y. Hoekstra, professor at the University of Twente, the Netherlands, introduced the water-footprint concept in 2002. It “shows water use related to consumption within a nation, while the traditional indicator shows water use in relation to production within a nation.” (Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008, p. 3)

With Hoekstra and Chapagain’s water footprint calculator (waterfootprint.org), you select your country, input food, domestic water use, and industrial goods consumption, press a button, and you get your:

• total water footprint for the year
• bar charts for the three components
• bar charts for individual food categories

For example, you’re in the US, eat only 1 pound of cereal a week (.4545 kg) and have a low-fat, low-sugar diet, use a low-flow showerhead, use a no-flush eco-toilet, and never run the tap while brushing your teeth. Two extremes:

• You’re the hippiest of the hip: making $10,000 a year: Your water footprint: 245 cubic meters (65,170 gallons)
• You’re the hippiest of the Yuppies: making $120,000: Your water footprint: 2979 cubic meters (792,414 gallons). Difference due to your income’s effect on industrial production.

Three notes on the calculations, because Professor Hoekstra is European and lives in the social welfare country that started birthing hippies in Amsterdam decades before they showed up in the US at Woodstock:

1. You input kilograms for food:
   • 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds = 35.2 ounces
   • 1 ounce = 0.028 kilograms. 1 pound = 0.454545 kilograms
2. Your water footprint is in cubic meters per year:
   • 1 cubic meter = 35.3 cubic feet = 266 gallons
3. The higher your income, the greater your water footprint, even if you don’t personally consume anything: you’re a capitalist pig supporting the Establishment Regime, I guess

So how is Cinnamon’s capitalist water footprint? Answer: 650 cubic meters (172,900 gallons)

I showed you mine. Now you show me yours:

Get the naked truth: Calculate your waterfootprint now:

Water’s running out:
I get the fossil fuel analogy so far.
And what about climate change?

We return to Fred Pearce’s book to find an example, of which he has oceans:

China’s Yellow River: The fifth longest in the world, it begins high in the mountains of eastern Tibet and journeys more than 3000 miles. Almost half a billion people depend on it for drinking and crop irrigation, and it’s made China the world’s largest wheat producer and second largest corn producer. Yet more than half of the lakes it feeds have disappeared over the last 20 years, and a third of pastures have turned to desert. This desertification generates huge dust storms that choke lungs in Beijing, close schools in Koreas, dust cars in Japan, and rain dust on mountains across the Pacific and Western Canada.

State irrigation projects along the Yellow River soak up the majority of its water - the total official allocations are greater than the actual flow.

The resulting drought could be an early warning sign of global warming.

Much of the declines in moisture reaching rivers is in line with prediction of climate researchers. So how does this global warming happen?

Higher air temperatures from desertification increase evaporation from oceans and intensify the water cycle. This increases atmospheric water vapor - 8 to 10% more than today. This increases global rainfall, but the rain is being redistributed: middle latitudes (read: the US) are becoming drier. Higher temperatures increase evaporation on land, meaning soil dries out faster, meaning less rainfall is reaching rivers.

The higher temperatures melt glaciers and snowpacks. At first, this leads to unpredecented floods. After the glaciers disappear, meltwaters that feed rivers disappear. The combined decreasing rainfall and increasing evaporation will lower moisture by 40% in the southern and western states.

The Sierra Nevada snowpack could diminish by 70 to 80 percent over the next 50 years. And some of the world’s most productive agricultural regions could dry up.

Global climate is becoming more extreme: the dry areas become drier, and the wet areas become wetter. And more areas are becoming dry deserts. Loss of habitat and agricultural lands. It’s a vicious cycle.

So what can you do?
Navigating through the Resource Matrix

As Fred Pearce points out, your drinking and bathing account for 0.05% of your total water consumption. Your food and clothing weigh in at 95.00%, although I find his 12,000 gallons needed to produce a pound of burger rather wild.

As Professor Arjen Y. Joekstra shows with his Water Footprint Calculator, your consumption of meats accounts for a lot, as does your guilt by association of being in an industrialized country.

The obvious solution: eat fewer e-coli burgers from your neighborhood Salt and Fat Slop Bucket restaurant.

The wiser solution: like your choices in energy use, become more aware of the resources needed to produce anything and the consequences. Such as luxurious cotton grown in the Egyptian desert.

Next article in the water efficiency series:
How an illiterate, lice-infested, foul-mouthed
peasant on some other side of the globe affects you

We continue going with the flow of water, when we show the parallel between the current hot Oil Wars and in the future cold Water Wars.

And all of this is for one purpose:

To help you see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you.

Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .

To your green, brighter future,

Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19

Lots of people talk about trying to live a greener life, with some even going so far as to completely change their lifestyle, but most people aren’t sure how to go green because they don’t know exactly what that means. Sure, most people know the basics that scratch the surface such as reusing, recycling and reducing the amount of waste output for their homes but there many other steps you can take to move towards a cleaner, greener environment.

If you’re wondering how you can make your life greener, here are five different tips that are simple and easy to implement and that don’t cost the you anything.  All it takes is a little dedication and after a few months, these five little things will become second-nature to you.

1. The next time you go shopping use cloth bags at the grocery store instead of paper or plastic.  These cloth bags can be purchased for as little as a few dollars each and they’re much stronger than paper or plastic bags and will last you through years of use. 

These bags help reduce waste since most people throw away the plastic and paper bags.  The hardest part of using cloth bags is remembering to take them to the store, but once you get in the habit of using them, it becomes unconscious habit.

2. Replace your standard light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs.  These bulbs use less energy and last for four to five years, almost 15 times longer than traditional bulbs.  While the cost of a compact fluorescent bulb is more than your standard bulb, they easily pay for themselves over time requiring less frequent replacement and reduced energy consumption.  In fact, studies show that a CF bulb can actually pay for itself within one to two months.  One CF bulb also saves about five pounds of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide a month.  Replacing every bulb in your home can have a huge impact on the environment and on your wallet.

3. Use public transportation.  By car pooling, taking the bus, or using the subway you can cut down on the amount of gas you use and the amount of exhaust your car emits.  While it may be an inconvenience in some ways, it is one of the best ways of helping the environment.  Even better, walk or ride your bike to work if possible.  This not only saves you money and helps the environment but it also keeps you fit and healthy!

4. Adjust your thermostat by a few degrees.  By turning your thermostat down by just two degrees in the winter, you can save over 50 pounds of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide per month while lowering your heating bill.  Turning it up a few degrees in the summer can likewise save you money and save the environment. 

5. Finally, only wash your clothes or run your dish washer when you have a full load.  It wastes water and electricity to wash and dry only a few pieces of clothing.  In fact, if you can, try to wash your clothes using the cold water cycle as it uses up to 50% less energy than a warm water one. 

Last week, we introduced you to the Resource Matrix, which is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

We showed you how economics leads to people maximizing their benefits in “win-lose” propositions: you want diamonds and gold for nothing and they want to give you useless junk for a king’s ransom. And how we’ve been hypnotized in believing what they want is also what we want.

But the scales have been falling from our eyes, we’re beginning to see the truth, and the power has been shifting away from the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd:

• Do-gooders have increased our awareness and worked to change deals from “win-lose” to “win-win”
• There is no “free lunch:” finite energy resources will run out; actions have consequences, and the consequences of our actions are already visible, rather scary, and quite irreversible; and that the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd hasn’t been telling the truth

We now realize we’re all in this together: we have greater awareness of our actions and the desire to change, and have ways to change.

Hallelujah and Praise the Collective!

Today, we introduce the resource called water, its parallels with fossil fuels, and its role in global warming.

None of this is to dismiss or diminish the contribution of fossil fuels in global warming. Hey, just like the Special Olympics, if you participate, you get a medal. We just think that gold-medal winner Fossil Fuels has stolen the spotlight, letting silver-medalist Water Use keep us hypnotized in believing that water is a free lunch, and that nature will clear up polluted waters while getting away with breaking the rules.

Water, water, everywhere,
not a drop to drink.

According to our friends at How Stuff Works, who I wrote about sarcastically for their oxymoronic clean coal article in discussing how true public relations stuff really works, gives us this data:

• 98% of the planet’s water is in the oceans. It’s salt water - we can’t drink it or irrigate our crops with it.
• 2% is usable. Of that 2%:
  • 80% is locked up in polar ice caps and glaciers
  • 18% is underground in aquifers and wells
  • 1.8% is in lakes and rivers
  • 0.2% is elsewhere: either floating in the air as clouds and water vapor, locked up in plants and animals (and your body), and in foods and beverages.

Okay, so 20% of the usable water (only 0.4% of all water on Earth) is accessible, right?

Well . . . no. Many of the aquifers, wells, lakes, and rivers have been sucked dry like a once-juicy fly carcass in a spider’s web. (The 18% and 1.8% you see above is like the money in the Social Security Fund: there actually is nothing there.)

And many of those water sources that do still have a drop to drink are worse than the ocean’s salt water. Drink salt water and you’ll need to yawn into a bucket. Drink this water and you’ll kick the bucket.

And I know you aren’t asking this burning question:

“So . . . global warming to release fresh water from ice caps and glaciers is a good thing, no?”

Percentage this, percentage that.
Talk my language, will you?

I know I’m pulling the disgusting old government trick: drowning you in an ocean of water statistics.

So let’s make it plain and simple:

You bring in $10,000 a month. You’re also living high on the hog and doing your personal best to outshine every bling-bling Hip Hopster Musical Artist in materially conspicuous consumption:

• $9800 goes to the McMansion mortgage and gold-plated Rolls Royce lease
• $160.00 goes to investments in clothing and accessories
• $0.40 has been lost in the sofa cushions
• $39.60 a month is for everything else: food, phone and electric bills, income taxes, and all the other non-essentials: Don’t spend it all in one place!

Aquifers and wells and lakes and rivers:
Dry or polluted, oh my!

Fred Pearce, author of When the Rivers Run Dry, helps us quickly understand it:

We can all save water in the home. But as laudable as it is to take a shower rather than a bath and turn off the faucet while brushing our teeth, we shouldn’t get hold of the idea that regular domestic water use is what is really emptying the world’s rivers. Manufacturing goods … consumes a certain amount, but that’s not the real story either. It is only when we add in the water needed to grow what we eat and drink that the numbers really begin to soar. (emphasis mine.) (Fred Pearce, When the Rivers Run Dry, Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. p 3)

Here are a few numbers he gives:

• to grow a pound of rice: 250 to 650 gallons of water
• to grow a pound of wheat: 130 gallons
• to produce a quart of milk: 500 to 1000 gallons
• to produce a pound of cheese: 650 gallons
• to produce a 1/4 pound of burger: 3000 gallons

He kindly puts water use into perspective in annual terms:

• 1 ton (265 gallons) for drinking
• 50 to 100 tons (13,250 to 26,500 gallons) around the house
• 1500 to 2000 tons (397,500 to 530,000 gallons) for food and clothing

—————————————–

sidebar:
How Many Gallons to Produce One Pound of Beef?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics

US Beef industry’s Cattlemen’s Association: 441 gallons
Fred Pearce: 12,000 gallons
Water Footprint Network: 1854 gallons (calculations: 15500 litres of water per kg; 4079 gallons per kg; 1854 gallons per pound)

In an industrial beef production system, it takes an average three years before the animal is slaughtered to produce about 200 kg of boneless beef.

The animal consumes nearly 1300 kg of grains (wheat, oats, barley, corn, dry peas, soybean meal and other small grains), 7200 kg of roughages (pasture, dry hay, silage and other roughages), 24 cubic meter of water for drinking and 7 cubic meter of water for servicing.

This means that to produce one kilogram of boneless beef, we use about 6.5 kg of grain, 36 kg of roughages, and 155 litres of water (only for drinking and servicing).

Producing the volume of feed requires about 15300 litres of water on average.

—————————————–

Where does all that water come from?
From virtually everywhere

If it comes from imported goods (Thai rice or Egyptian cotton), the water comes from those countries.

When the water is collected from rivers or pumped from underground, as it is in much of the world, it’s:

• increasingly expensive
• increasingly likely to deprive someone of water (nothing to drink)
• increasingly likely to empty rivers and underground water reserves

And when the rivers are running low, as they are more frequently, there is less water to grow anything at all.

The water used in growing and producing goods around the world is known as “virtual water” and the trade of these goods is known as “virtual water transfers.”

And who’s the biggest water exporting Mouseketeer of them all? The United States.

When you drink coffee from Central America, you are influencing the hydrology of the region, virtually taking a share of the Costa Rican rains. The same is true within a national and regional boundaries. The Colorado River is drained so Californians can eat their Big Macs and have friends over for a Sunday afternoon barbecue.

In the same way that your use of fossil fuel is measured as a “carbon footprint,” your water use, actual and through virtual water transfer, is measured as a “water footprint.”

How big is my water footprint?
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours

Arjen Y. Hoekstra, professor at the University of Twente, the Netherlands, introduced the water-footprint concept in 2002. It “shows water use related to consumption within a nation, while the traditional indicator shows water use in relation to production within a nation.” (Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008, p. 3)

With Hoekstra and Chapagain’s water footprint calculator (waterfootprint.org), you select your country, input food, domestic water use, and industrial goods consumption, press a button, and you get your:

• total water footprint for the year
• bar charts for the three components
• bar charts for individual food categories

For example, you’re in the US, eat only 1 pound of cereal a week (.4545 kg) and have a low-fat, low-sugar diet, use a low-flow showerhead, use a no-flush eco-toilet, and never run the tap while brushing your teeth. Two extremes:

• You’re the hippiest of the hip: making $10,000 a year: Your water footprint: 245 cubic meters (65,170 gallons)
• You’re the hippiest of the Yuppies: making $120,000: Your water footprint: 2979 cubic meters (792,414 gallons). Difference due to your income’s effect on industrial production.

Three notes on the calculations, because Professor Hoekstra is European and lives in the social welfare country that started birthing hippies in Amsterdam decades before they showed up in the US at Woodstock:

1. You input kilograms for food:
   • 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds = 35.2 ounces
   • 1 ounce = 0.028 kilograms. 1 pound = 0.454545 kilograms
2. Your water footprint is in cubic meters per year:
   • 1 cubic meter = 35.3 cubic feet = 266 gallons
3. The higher your income, the greater your water footprint, even if you don’t personally consume anything: you’re a capitalist pig supporting the Establishment Regime, I guess

So how is Cinnamon’s capitalist water footprint? Answer: 650 cubic meters (172,900 gallons)

I showed you mine. Now you show me yours:

Get the naked truth: Calculate your waterfootprint now:

Water’s running out:
I get the fossil fuel analogy so far.
And what about climate change?

We return to Fred Pearce’s book to find an example, of which he has oceans:

China’s Yellow River: The fifth longest in the world, it begins high in the mountains of eastern Tibet and journeys more than 3000 miles. Almost half a billion people depend on it for drinking and crop irrigation, and it’s made China the world’s largest wheat producer and second largest corn producer. Yet more than half of the lakes it feeds have disappeared over the last 20 years, and a third of pastures have turned to desert. This desertification generates huge dust storms that choke lungs in Beijing, close schools in Koreas, dust cars in Japan, and rain dust on mountains across the Pacific and Western Canada.

State irrigation projects along the Yellow River soak up the majority of its water - the total official allocations are greater than the actual flow.

The resulting drought could be an early warning sign of global warming.

Much of the declines in moisture reaching rivers is in line with prediction of climate researchers. So how does this global warming happen?

Higher air temperatures from desertification increase evaporation from oceans and intensify the water cycle. This increases atmospheric water vapor - 8 to 10% more than today. This increases global rainfall, but the rain is being redistributed: middle latitudes (read: the US) are becoming drier. Higher temperatures increase evaporation on land, meaning soil dries out faster, meaning less rainfall is reaching rivers.

The higher temperatures melt glaciers and snowpacks. At first, this leads to unpredecented floods. After the glaciers disappear, meltwaters that feed rivers disappear. The combined decreasing rainfall and increasing evaporation will lower moisture by 40% in the southern and western states.

The Sierra Nevada snowpack could diminish by 70 to 80 percent over the next 50 years. And some of the world’s most productive agricultural regions could dry up.

Global climate is becoming more extreme: the dry areas become drier, and the wet areas become wetter. And more areas are becoming dry deserts. Loss of habitat and agricultural lands. It’s a vicious cycle.

So what can you do?
Navigating through the Resource Matrix

As Fred Pearce points out, your drinking and bathing account for 0.05% of your total water consumption. Your food and clothing weigh in at 95.00%, although I find his 12,000 gallons needed to produce a pound of burger rather wild.

As Professor Arjen Y. Joekstra shows with his Water Footprint Calculator, your consumption of meats accounts for a lot, as does your guilt by association of being in an industrialized country.

The obvious solution: eat fewer e-coli burgers from your neighborhood Salt and Fat Slop Bucket restaurant.

The wiser solution: like your choices in energy use, become more aware of the resources needed to produce anything and the consequences. Such as luxurious cotton grown in the Egyptian desert.

Next article in the water efficiency series:
How an illiterate, lice-infested, foul-mouthed
peasant on some other side of the globe affects you

We continue going with the flow of water, when we show the parallel between the current hot Oil Wars and in the future cold Water Wars.

And all of this is for one purpose:

To help you see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you.

Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .

To your green, brighter future,

Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19

Many folks have taken to Global Warming, which by definition means the planet is warming due to CO2 from man-made emissions. If the planet were warming from any other source, it would be by definition called climate change. Unfortunately for the Global Warming evangelists the planet may not be warming, in fact, as of late the solar minimum is at a record low, and the planet is cooling.

Still, the believers in this doom and gloom scenario say that Climate Computer Modeling proves it. Oh, really, because as it stands humans wrote those computer models and the algorithms that generate these futurist prediction. In fact, one of the biggest issues with the climate modeling is they keep re-adjusting them to get the desired resultant. There is something seriously fishy about that.

Personally, I do not like pollution, land, sea or air, or even all that space debris up there. That’s just proof of inefficiency, which is not worthy of human potential or intellect. But, computer modeling is only as good as the program and data. Garbage in = garbage out.

If reduction of pollution, let’s say CO2 is the goal then let’s dump the scientific pretendism and get real; let’s just say that the human race has agreed to reduce greenhouse gases on the planet caused from mankind and then start doing it. But to hold this Global Warming doomsday theory out as real is really not helping anyone. In fact, we are liable to change our entire civilization’s infrastructure for no reason whatsoever.

Because the reality is that the Earth’s atmosphere and ambient surface temperatures heat up and cool in cycles and they have for billions of years, and there is nothing that mankind presently can do about that. Think on it.

What can be done about this increasingly worrying contribution to global warming?

The most important options to reduce aircraft CO2 emissions are:

Changes in aircraft and engine technology; use of alternative fuels, such as (sustainably produced) biofuels; regulatory and operational measures such as improvements in air traffic management; economic measures such as inclusion of aircraft emissions in emission trading schemes.

But, as Giovanni Bisignani, manager of International Air Transport Association (IATA), stated: “Emissions trading schemes only make sense with efficient infrastructure. The IPCC estimates that there is 12% inefficiency in air traffic management globally: we produce up to 73 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year by aircraft flying inefficiently due to air traffic management limitations”. **

On a personal level we could ask ourselves especially in the developed world: “Do we really need to fly so frequently?” The use of telework, teleconference and video conference could be largely increased to plan work and meetings. Can’t the development of land and air transportation infrastructures be balanced better according to the real needs of people and businesses? Trains could connect cities better and more cheaply for example in Europe, where the prices are not competitive with those of many flights anymore (and night train services have been reduced if not cancelled).

Life styles do matter because if millions of people want to have cheap weekends in relatively close tourist locations, many flights are needed to satisfy their desires and consequently a lot of pollution is generated. Also, our per capita emissions could be cut also by reducing the “surplus” trips, by slowing down our life rhythms and enjoying more local attractions in our free time. Who knows? We could discover the “exotic” in our own neighborhoods without flying to the Caribbean Sea…

Furthermore the relationship between the costs and the environmental externalities (i.e. costs not included in the economy like health damages caused by pollution) needs to be considered as well: there are higher marginal impacts for short-distance flights that should be considered in prices paid by passengers.

All these political, technological and personal choices are some of the good examples needed by the developing countries to follow the 21st century’s Western society along a new sustainable path which looks like the only good alternative forward.

If you search for gasification and terms like “wood stove” on video sharing sites these days you will see demonstrations of wood being burnt in little stoves which seem to something almost miraculous and quite different from our idea of wood as a fuel. These little boilers light rapidly, produce no detectable smoke after the initial lighting and firing, and burn very hot.

So what is the technique which is being used, and how might it help us all in weaning society off fossil fuels?

What you have seen is a method of gasification. It differs from combustion in that it uses just 20% to 30% of the air or oxygen necessary for complete fuel combustion. During gasification, the amount of air supplied to the gasifier is carefully controlled with the effect that only a small part of the fuel burns completely. Trials of this process have illustrated that up to 70% of the energy value of the fue used can be recovered as what is known as synthesis gas, or syngas. This producer gas can also be used for various applications similar to natural gas.

This is a part of the magic, and not one really shown in the YouTube type videos, but it makes this method even more useful. This is due to the fact that syngas can be put to useful work, in both drying the feed fuel prior to gasification and after collection and storage it can be used as a fossil fuel replacement, and renewable energy source. When a gasification plant also includes Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and/or electricity export from the site, the gains are even more impressive.

Gasification in addition promises to be the most efficient long-term solution for capturing carbon while utilizing these valuable feedstocks, and storing the CO2 for very long priods, to reduce or halt global warming.

Gasification of wood and wood-type residues and waste in fixed bed or fluidised bed gasifiers with subsequent burning of the gas for heat production is has become state of the art with designers of thes systems working hard to gain the absolute maximum efficiency out of these systems.

These wood gasifiers which are located primarily in the Scandinavian countries are used almost entirely for space heating heat generation. Gasification of biomass is the renewable fuel system preferred by many, and can be defined as the thermal conversion of solid biomass to gaseous fuel.

Gasification has been around for over a hundred years, but the benefits of biochar are only now being discovered. Furthermore, it is still a wide-open field.

Before electric lighting was available in cities there were street lamps fuelled by gasified coal. It is easy to forget that the process has been reliably used on a commercial scale worldwide for more than 50 years in the refining, fertilizer, and chemical industries, and for more than 35 years in the electric power industry. More than 75 companies involved in the development, licensing, and use of these technologies as well as engineering, construction, equipment manufacturing and production of synthesis gas by gasification from coal, petroleum coke, heavy oils and other hydrocarbons.

Gasification has been proven to be a viable technology for CO2 capture and reducing SOx, NOx, particulate matter, and mercury emissions from coal and petcoke-fired power plants, synthetic fuels production, and chemical facilities.

Plants in this category have been capturing carbon dioxide for several decades in chemical plants in China and the United States. It also has potential contributions to make to both transportation and electrical power energy markets. With ongoing concerns about the price and availability of oil, populous countries like the U.S. gasification has proven to be in high demand and quite successful. However, it can also be used in conjunction with gas engines and gas turbines to obtain a higher conversion efficiency than conventional fossil-fuel electric power generation. Gasification can help meet renewable energy targets, address concerns about global warming, and contribute to meeting global environmental targets.