Apparently, this nation’s carbon footprint has a distinct geographic bend–an urban resident emits less carbon dioxide pollution than the average American.

The Brookings Institution has released a report which analyzed data on household and transportation energy use and found that the average U.S. resident was responsible for about 2.87 tons of carbon pollution a year, but that residents of the U.S.’s 100 largest metro areas had footprints of just 2.47 tons a year on average.  Overall, West Coast cities fared better than Eastern ones due to warmer climates, more aggressive energy-reduction policies, higher fuel and electricity costs, and a greater reliance on hydropower.

“It was a surprise the extent to which emissions per capita are lower,”  offered Marilyn Brown, a professor of energy policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology and co-author of the report.

The report presented a limited snapshot of overall emissions, focusing on residential electricity and fuel use and the mileage traveled by cars and trucks which contribute to almost half of overall carbon emissions. The calculations do not include industrial emissions, those from commercial or government structures and those from air, rail or sea transportation.

The authors also suggested policy recommendations, including federal legislation setting a price on carbon emissions, increasing financing for energy research and development, revising federal policies that reward states with high levels of travel and fuel use and providing more predictable, financial support of mass transit.

Urban America’s necessary leadership role in addressing energy and environmental challenges must have effective underlying federal policy actions in order to successfully seek metropolitan energy and climate solutions.

In research presented at the proceedings of the National Academy of Science, scientists from Brown University have concluded that an ecosystem’s productivity is directly linked to its diversity of plant species. The discovery has granted biodiversity a newfound significance in the fight against climate change—in short, the more varied and prolific the ecosystem, the more carbon it captures.  The results support previous findings and also suggest that the effect of biodiversity in natural ecosystems may be much larger than currently thought

The study was conducted for six years in Patagonia, a region of vast steppelike plains located in the southernmost reaches of South America.  The scientists divided an area into ninety plots, and then began to systematically remove native species from each plot and chart the changes in the plot’s productivity. Productivity dropped as species were removed.  The scientists believe that productivity is linked to the diversity of species because of “niche complementarity”. In other words, in a healthy environment each species has evolved its own niche without interrupting other species’ niches. This harmony between species allows them to positively interact with each other and fully utilize the resources of a given space.

“It’s a double whammy,” Osvaldo Sala explained. “We not only are disturbing our planet by putting more carbon into the atmosphere, but we’re reducing the ability of ecosystems to capture and store it.” Sala is the director of the Environmental Change Initiative and the Sloan Lindeman Professor of Biology at Brown.
  
The findings appear to have important ramifications beyond plant species, since high biodiversity of plants depends on non-plant species. Insects, birds, and bats are major pollinators for plant species; some plant species depend on a single insect or animal species for pollination. So, to have a truly productive ecosystem all of the region’s biodiversity must be retained.

Bugs are facing a changed world. 

Tropical insects and other species which are sensitive to even more modest variations in temperature than those creatures living in the world’s tundra risk extinction with climate change.  While moderate and cold weather animals are accustomed to large temperature changes, tropical species live under a much more narrow temperature range—thus, these insects face a greater risk of extinction with an increase of merely two to four degrees Celsius according to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The University of Washington researchers responsible for this study examined daily and monthly global temperatures from 1950 to 2000.  They superimposed climate model projections for warming in the first years of the 21st century drawn up by a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  The scientists then compared the information with data describing the link between temperature and fitness for 38 temperate and tropical insects as well as cold-blooded animals such as frogs, lizards and turtles.

They concluded that unlike cold weather animals that can more readily adapt to significant climate change by for example, developing thick fur, tropical species do not have the same mechanisms for adaptation.  Rather, they must use other tactics to protect themselves from higher temperatures such as staying out of direct sunlight or burrowing into the soil.  Unfortunately, it is apparent that the warmer weather brought on by climate change may arrive too quickly for their physiologies to timely respond.   

“In the tropics many species appear to be living at or near their thermal optimum, a temperature that lets them thrive,” remarked Joshua Tewksbury, an assistant professor of biology at the Seattle, Washington University.  “But once temperature gets above the thermal optimum, fitness levels most likely decline quickly and there may not be much they can do about it,” he said.

“Many tropical species can only tolerate a narrow range of temperatures because the climate they experience is pretty constant throughout the year,” said Curtis Deutsch, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at UCLA and a co-author of the study.  “Our calculations show that they will be harmed by rising temperatures more than would species in cold climates,” he added.

“Unfortunately, the tropics also hold the large majority of species on the planet,” said Deutsch.

Climate change—affecting all creatures, great and small.

An international team of oceanographers, including a scientist from the esteemed Scripps Institution of Oceanography, has determined that expanded areas of tropical oceans are suffering from oxygen depletion as the waters warm globally.  This significant study, entitled “Expanding Oxygen-Minimum Zones in the Tropical Oceans,” was published and appears in the May 2 issue of the journal Science.  The research group was headed by Lothar Stramma from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR) in Kiel, Germany and was co-authored by Janet Sprintall, a physical oceanographer at Scripps.  Lower oxygen levels in the oceans limits the areas in which predatory fishes and other marine organisms can live or enter in search of food.  Warming oceans caused by climate change could gradually starve parts of our essential tropical oceans of oxygen, damaging fisheries and coastal economies.

The researchers found through analysis of a database of ocean oxygen measurements that levels in tropical oceans at a depth of 300 to 700 meters have declined during the past 50 years.  Problems of lower oxygen supply likely will add to the already mounting problems caused by over-fishing as the world struggles to feed an expanding population. 

In undertaking their research, the team selected ocean regions for which they could obtain the greatest amount of data to document the decline in oxygen. Some of the more recent data came from oxygen sensors which have been added to about 150 of the profiling floats used in Argo, a worldwide network of sensors that track basic ocean conditions such as temperature and salinity. There are more than 3,000 Argo floats operating in the world’s oceans, and it has been suggested that more units in the network should be outfitted with oxygen sensors.

The ecological impacts of warmer oceans causing more widespread oxygen depletion in our oceans could very well have substantial biological and economical consequences.

The last blog on grilling set the taste buds to going.  So, below is a very fine, yet simple recipe for Grilled Butterflied Leg of Lamb, which calls for a local, organic lamb.  Before we embark on the cooking process, a few words on organic lamb…

Organic farming promotes biological diversity and replenishment of soil without the use of toxic chemical pesticides and fertilizers.Organic certification means that the methods and practices of raising livestock have reviewed by an independent third party.  Organic meat production means that only meats labeled Certified Organic are 100% free of genetically modified organisms, pesticides, medications, and growth hormones.

You know what the word “local” means.  Now, on to the victuals:

Butterflied Leg of Lamb

Marinade

2/3 cup fresh lemon juice

1 T rice vinegar

½ cup brown sugar

2 T local honey

½  cup Dijon mustard

½  cup soy sauce

½ cup olive oil

3-4 garlic cloves, finely minced

1 inch slice of ginger root, peeled and finely minced

1 inch slice of ginger root, unpeeled and thinly sliced

Seasoning

2-3 cloves garlic, halved

1 tablespoon salt

1 tablespoon freshly ground pepper

Meat

1 boned and butterflied leg of organic, local lamb (5-6 lbs. boned weight)

Rub the halved garlic cloves over the surface of the lamb.  Next, salt and pepper on both sides.  Then, combine marinade ingredients & pour over lamb.  Marinate at least 2 hours at room temperature and preferably overnight in the refrigerator, turning the meat at least once and hopefully more. If it is marinated overnight in the refrigerator, be sure to bring the meat to room temperature before grilling.

Drain before cooking & reserve marinade.

Prepare coals or gas grill for barbecuing.  If using charcoal grill, open vents on bottom, then light charcoal. Charcoal fire is medium-hot when you can hold your hand 5 inches above rack for 4 to 5 seconds. If using gas grill, preheat burners on high with hood closed 10 minutes, then turn down to moderately high.  

Place the grill 4-5 inches above coals & grill, fat side down, covered, 15 minutes.  Turn meat & grill, covered, about 10 minutes more on the other side or until it reaches medium rare.

Before carving, let the lamb rest for at least 10-15 minutes to allow the juices to migrate throught.  If you carve too soon, the juices will simply exit the lamb onto your cutting board and you will have a much drier piece of meat.  To serve, slice the lamb across the grain along the bias and fan them onto plates.  Heat remaining marinade, discard the sliced ginger root, and drizzle over the lamb slices.

There has already been lively discourse over the flavor attributes of charcoal vs. gas grills.  Now, debates have been emerging around the country about whether is is greener to  grill over charcoal barbeques or on gas grills.  Which patio toy produces fewer carbon dioxide emissions in the long run?

In an article published in the The New York Times green issue, Tris West, an environmental scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, calculated emissions from the two methods. He concluded that since charcoal is derived from wood products— trees that absorb atmospheric carbon as they grew — burning it on the grill approaches a “net zero” resulat in terms of carbon emissions.  By comparison, gas grills use propane which is a fossil fuel that adds to greenhouse gas accumulations. However,  West cautions that the polemics become a tad more complicated because burning charcoal may release particulates into the atmosphere. 

The good news is that your choice won’t effect any significant change in mass carbon emissions. By West’s estimation, the total amount of carbon dioxide released from barbecue grills on July 4 is on the order of .003 percent of the annual U.S. total.  Has the issue returned to flavor now?

What causes the disturbing reality of adults so consistently harming the world’s precious, unwitting children with our own ”mature” actions?  Starvation, Water Shortages, Disease, War, Indiscriminate Bombing, Civil Unrest, Lack of Education…we could go on.

In recent years, climate change has been added to this historical list of shame.  Several studies have been published which demonstrate that our failure to address the dire climate changes facing the world will have deleterious health effects on millions of the world’s poorest children.   The UNICEF report entitled  ”Our Climate, Our Children, Our Responsibility“ measured action on targets set in a prior UN study which was aimed at halving child poverty by 2015. It found failure on a broad array of issues from health to survival, education and gender equality.

The report opined climate change could add 40,000-160,000 child deaths a year in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa through lower economic growth. It also noted that if temperatures rose by two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, up to 200 million people globally would face hunger – a figure that climbs to 550 million with a temperature rise of three degrees. The UNICEF report said economic damage due to climate change would force parents to withdraw children from schools – often the only place they are guaranteed at least one meal a day – to fetch water and fuel instead.

Environmental changes wrought by climate change will also expand the range of deadly diseases such as malaria, which already kills 800,000 children a year and is now being seen in previously unaffected areas. Scientists predict global average temperatures will rise by between 1.6 and 4.0 degrees Celsius this century due to carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport, causing floods, famines, violent storms and droughts. An international agreement is being sought on action to ensure temperatures do not rise more than 2.0 degrees.

 ”It is clear that a failure to address climate change is a failure to protect children,” offered one UNICEF director, David Bull. “Those who have contributed least to climate change – the world’s poorest children – are suffering the most.”

Is it a corollary that those who have contributed the most to climate change – the world’s wealthiest adults – are causing the most suffering to children?

Tomorrow, Friday, April 25 is Arbor Day!

For those who failed to make or follow through on resolutions on Earth day, there is time for atonement.

Arbor Day is a nationally celebrated observance that encourages tree planting and care.   Founded by J. Sterling Morton in Nebraska in 1872, National Arbor Day is celebrated each year on the last Friday in April.

Forests cover almost one third of the Earth’s surface and support much of the world’s biodiversity. It has been estimated that about one half of the world’s species are found in forested areas, particularly in species abundant tropical rainforests. Beyond their fecund majesty, forests also provide critical ecosystem services by replenishing oxygen in the atmosphere, reducing erosion, retaining moisture in the soil, and storing carbon. Half of the forests that originally covered 48 percent of the Earth’s land surface are gone. Only one-fifth of the Earth’s original forests remain pristine and undisturbed. Our forests deserve our immediate and constant stewardship.

Join Students Going Green’s affiliate, The Nature Conservancy,  in replenshing our precious forests.  The Nature Conservancy is an esteemed conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people.   With more than one million members, our affiliate, The Nature Conservancy, helps to protect more than 117 million acres of land and 5,000 miles of rivers worldwide, operating more than 100 marine conservation projects globally.

Celebrate Arbor Day with Students Going Green and The Nature Conservancy by helping to plant a billion trees. 

One of the basic credos of the Environmental Protection Agency is “to protect human health and the environment.”  EPA scientists are directly charged by federal law and regulation with applying their expertise, knowledge and experience to protect our public from air and water pollution, hazardous waste disposal, and current threats such as climate change.  The advent of rather grave national and global environmental concerns over the course of this administration has merited even greater scientific scrutiny and environmental analysis from this federal agency.

Unfortunately, a recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) cast serious doubts over the ability of scientists at the EPA to freely research and share important environmental findings during this administration.  The UCS conducted an investigation into political interference in science at the EPA.  The inquiry combined numerous interviews with current and former EPA staff, analysis of government documents, more than 1,600 responses to a survey sent to current EPA scientists, and written comments from EPA scientists.  

The results of the USC investigation demonstrated that the EPA has been an agency under siege from political pressures within this administration. On a broad array of important environmental issues—ranging from mercury pollution to groundwater contamination to climate change—political appointees have edited scientific documents, manipulated scientific assessments, and generally sought to undermine the science behind dozens of EPA regulations.  Political efforts have also been made to suppress the open, honest publication of studies which have a direct bearing on our public health.

Of the responses to the UCS survey, 889 EPA scientists (60%) said they had personally experienced at least one instance of political interference in the last five years and 394 said they experienced frequent or occasional “statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists’ findings.”

The report added that more than one-fifth of the scientists said they had experienced “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome,” the report said.

 As aptly stated by Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists:  an administration “distorting science to accommodate a narrow political agenda threatens our environment, our health and our democracy itself.” 

Our combined efforts, each and every day, week, and year will make a difference to our Earth, so we become part of the solution and not the problem.

Shop local markets to buy food produced, grown, or raised as close to your home as possible. Our food is now grown and processed in fewer locales, often requiring extensive travel to reach your table. Although this production method may be considered efficient and economically profitable for many large suppliers, it remains harmful to the environment, consumers and rural communities. By buying local, you can support your community and likely receive fresher product.

Beyond local, there are a number of other labels and designations to keep in mind, including organic, biodynamic, and sustainable. Organic food is regulated by the U.S.D.A. and must meet certain standards to be certified as such. While there is debate over the value of the U.S.D.A. organic label and how much it corresponds to the initial aims of sustainable architecture, you can usually assume that any food bearing the U.S.D.A. organic label is free from artificial pesticides and fertilizers. Biodynamic farming likewise avoids pesticides and fertilizers which renders a sustainable system in which everything on the farm is reused or recycled.  There are a myriad of other words used to define sustainable agriculture, but in its basic form,  it strives to sustain rather than degrade the environment while also being econonomically viable.

With this in mind, here is another Students Going Green recipe:

Spinach, Leek & Mushroom Frittata

1 1/2 tablespoon of extra virgin olive oil
1 cup chopped leeks (white and pale green parts only)
4 cups loosely packed fresh spinach leaves, rinsed, dried and cut into thin ribbons
1 cup sliced stemmed shiitake mushrooms
8 large organic eggs
sea salt and freshly ground black pepper

a slight dollop of heavy whipping cream
a pinch of cayenne pepper & freshly grated nutmeg

1/2 cup gruyere cheese, shredded
1 cup freshly grated parmigianno-reggiano cheese divided in two equal parts

Preheat the broiler.

Saute the sliced mushrooms and leeks in butter and some olive oil, salt and pepper, then cool them to room temperature—so the mushrooms and leeks do not cook the egg mixture with their ambient heat.

Crack the eggs into a large bowl and beat lightly with a wire whisk.  Add the salt, peppers, nutmeg, spinach, leeks, mushrooms, half the parmigiano-reggiano, then beat and combine those ingredients.

In a 9″ ovenproof non-stick omelet pan or skillet, heat the oil over moderate heat, swirling the pat to coat the bottom and sides evenly.  When the oil is hot, but not smoking, add the frittata mixture.  Reduce the heat to low and cook slowly, stirring the top part of the mixture, but allowing the bottom to set until the egg mixture has begun to form small curds and the frittata is browning on the bottom (4-5 minutes).  With a spatula, gently loosen the the frittata from the edges of the pan.  Sprinkle with the remaining parmigianno-reggiano and the gruyere.

Transfer the skillet to the broiler, placing it about 6″ from the heating element, and broil until the frittata browns lightly on top.  It will puff up and become firm in about 3-4 minutes, but watch carefully as ovens differ.  However, take care to not open the oven too often during the process as the resulting drop in temperatures affects the cooking process. 

Remove the pan from the broiler, give it a slight fresh grate of parmiggiano-reggiano, and let it cool for at least couple of minutes, allowing it to set.  Next, either slide or invert the frittata onto a flat plate.  Frittatas are often served just slightly warm or room temperature.