Saving the rainforests and environment is not an easy task. It took many years of neglect, mainly on our part, in keeping the environment clean. We polluted our air and our water through chemicals and different types of bacteria and debris. We used paper products that were not recyclable and or were not biodegradable.

Rome wasn’t built in a day as the old cliche states, but we managed to ruin our planet over the years and unfortunately it will take longer than a day to rid the Earth of all the garbage we have dumped on it. It is so easy to throw a piece of paper out of your car window, instead of finding a receptacle to dispose of it, or to throw empty cans in with your regular garbage instead of separating them for the recycle pickup or to bring bottles back to the store. Let’s not forget the broken down refrigerators, t.v.s, mattresses, etc on the side of the road.

I have traveled to third world countries and it breaks my heart to see that. They have no means of garbage disposal and they certainly don’t know how to recycle. Most of the people, although poor, take pride and keep their properties neat and debris free, others do not care. The same goes for people who live here on Earth. Some are proud of what they own and others could care less.

By the inch it’s a cinch, by the yard it’s hard. If we all do our part in what ever little way, we can help improve Mother Earth and make it liveable for generations to come. Let’s start by picking up our litter, don’t let the water run when brushing your teeth, use rags instead of paper towels, carpool if you can, don’t discard items on the side of the road to make it look unsightly, but for the most part…. Be Proud Of Where You Live and What You Have!!!!!!

You may have seen something on the news about Spokane, Washington where there is now a ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates. While this may seem to be an isolated case, there are actually several states (including the rest of the state of Washington) that will make dishwashing soap made with phosphates above a very small level illegal in 2010.

What is phosphate anyway and why is it used in dish washing soap?  Phosphate is an inorganic chemical that is a combination of salt and phosphoric acid.  Because it can clean things like hard water stains, and grease, phosphates are used in all kinds of things including dish washing soap. 

Why all the fuss?  Phosphate is a problem when it finds its way to freshwater rivers and lakes.  The phosphate encouraged the growth of algae which depletes the oxygen in these rivers and lakes, killing off fish and other wildlife. 

While there are green alternatives out there, deleting the phosphates from the dish washing soap can leave one unsatisfied with the resulting product-and a lot of dirty dishes.  Plus some of these green alternatives are pricier than their cheaper phosphorous counterparts.  This has caused people to travel outside their state to obtain contraband detergent from other states-which, of course, defeats the purpose of the bank in the first place. 

What should you look for in a green dish washing soap?  Are there green products that work as well?  While there is no direct substitute for phosphorous, but there are other substances that can be used.  How well they will work depends on a number of factors, perhaps the most important being the hardness of the water used for cleaning.

One ingredient that be used is a surfactants.  Surfactants are usually biodegradable and are used to provide cleaning power and increase the ability of the water to separate the soil from the dish. Anionic surfactants work well as detergents, but can be less than effective in hard water. Amphoteric surfactants are used for their foaming power and can often be found with anionic surfactants. There are other substitutes for phosphates, but these can be even more dangerous than the phosphates. They include nitrilotriacatic acid (NTA) and caustic alkaline chemicals (which are particularly dangerous when ingested-as sometimes happens with children).

It may take some trial and error to come up with the phosphate substitute that works best in your water.  It is unlikely that the ban on phosphates is going away, so it is better to start exploring the options now.  In the meantime, the soap manufacturers continue work on the perfect phosphate substitute, but there are some excellent alternatives out there.

You cannot control that which you do not measure.

In more and more industries, the exact knowledge of particle contamination is gaining in importance. Contamination of materials in dimensions of a few micrometers was mainly of concern for the pharmaceutical and semiconductor industries. However, not only manufacturers of circuit board components, but also traditional car parts suppliers face new demands on particle recognition and contamination source identification.

Cleanliness for the automotive parts manufacturers has become a huge topic in today’s ever challenging continuous improvement world. The need to define, measure and control the levels of particulate contamination on product is the new norm for suppliers and automotive OEM’s.

Cleanliness directly relates to product warranties, reliability, performance and safety issues. It has long been known that a dirty product gives us poor quality and low life expectancy. The dirtier the transmission from new, the less time it will last.

It is crucial now to identify particles and their source so that effective elimination can be achieved. Residual contamination consists of particles that persist on the component’s surface after the final step in manufacturing. Such contaminants are introduced via parts from suppliers or arise during processing. After vehicle assembly, the contaminant particles can cause severe damage, loss of function or reduce the lifetime of the product.

Cleanliness is defined as the contamination level of a component surface. Common measures to quantify the cleanliness are mass of the contaminants as well as number, size of the dirt particles. In general, the customer will specify contamination limits. The supplier then has to maintain these levels and document them regularly by means of contamination analysis.

The analysis of the contamination has to be proven to not affect the result and to be effective in evaluating all the contamination present. Methods of extraction and evaluation are specified in the international standard ISO 16232. Particular attention must be paid to the extraction method to ensure no contributing factors are introduced to the evaluation. There are different methods of counting the resulting extracted particles but by far the most accurate, repeatable and cost effective is automated microscope analysis. The microscope with software can scan the filter membrane; sort the particles by size class and even determine basic material composition (metal, non-metal, fiber). Once the data is gathered a custom report can be generated based on the customer requirements.

For more information on cleanliness analysis, visit http://www.onclean.com

Genetically modified (GM) foods are not being found to be safe for humans, or for the environment. There are a number of reasons why there a growing number of people are against GM foods. Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe? The reason to resist the growth of GM food in our diet is that it has a negative impact on our environment; plants and animals grown organically are not distorting their genetic makeup.

And in the rush to accelerate the production of genetically modified foods, scientists are short cutting testing methods. Recently, the United States Tufts University, School of Medicine was involved in testing the effects of genetically modified rice directly on children (by-passing the usual practice of testing on animals). This direct testing on children created controversy and a formal letter of protest from 22 international scientists to the University; the protest letter has been made public through various social media. 
 
The letter protested the use of children as a breach of medical ethics code since children cannot legally give their consent (since it is not deemed to be informed consent) to participate in experiments. As Professor David Schubert, Salk Institute of Biological Studies said, “…it is completely immoral to feed this rice to children without proper safety testing … [i]t’s like putting a new drug on the market with no toxicology or safety trials”.
 
In defense of their position, the Golden Rice Organization issued a press release that states they “…us[ed] the correct Chinese and US government approved processes, the trials in China went ahead last year with the formal approval of their parents and the understanding of the children”.   How do children understand the impact of genetically modified food on themselves or the environment? It’s a complex subject that many adults have a hard time understanding. Also, how can anyone (parents, children, or testing scientists) understand what the long term effects of genetically modified “golden rice” are on the human body without prior study or testing? 
 
More importantly, will the overall risks of genetically modified foods over time out weigh the alleged benefits? Farmers have cross-bred plants and animals for hundreds of years to improve their products. Improvements to size, produce yield, taste, hardiness have been achieved through relatively natural means and within nature’s own boundaries; different species were not bred together.
 
With the discovery of DNA and a method of gene extraction, the concept of genetic modification was born. The intent of genetic modification is to create food that grows quickly, yields much, is resistant to pests, to disease, and to other natural events. However a number of scientists respond that the benefits are not worth the risks; genetically modified foods often become resistant to herbicides and pesticides requiring ever increasing amounts. There is the suspicion (still unproven) that pollinating bees have been affected by the increasing use of these chemicals and that both pollinator and predator species have been affected by the genetically modified crops (also known as transgenic crops) through habitat destruction and use of dangerous herbicides and pesticides. 
 
Since the introduction of genetically modified foods, some scientists are reporting that food-related illness has increased. The only published human feeding study confirmed that genetic material in genetically modified soy transferred into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and continued to function. What long term impact will these foods have on the population and the environment?  There are many more potential risks in the development of genetically modified foods. Animals that were fed genetically modified feed appeared to suffer from increases in fetal death, low birth weight, sterility, and more. The concern is that human reproductive failure and sterility or infertility will be long term consequences to using GM foods.
 
In the US, the Department of Agriculture reports that cotton and corn crops have been genetically modified to produce their own Bt toxins since 1996. Bt modified crops are insecticidal crystal proteins and are considered effective against crop-damaging caterpillars. The toxins are considered important for pest control and since resistance to herbicides and pesticides is growing, the sentiment is that these genetically engineered Bt toxins will help to protect the crops. The issue with the GM Bt toxins is that they are considered serious allergens; ever wonder why so many more children and adults are exhibiting allergic reactions than ever before?
 

The problem with genetically modified foods is that there is also a reaction for the action; unfortunately, globally, in our rush to grow food supplies, we have not taken the time to properly test and research the long term impacts and effects of genetically modified foods. It is easy to be against GM foods - our planet is at risk.

Bags hold an important place in our lives. They are sometimes referred to as the best personal carriers. They are made of various stuffs like cotton, synthetic, leather and so. But when it comes to general usage like for shopping, the names of two types of bags viz. plastic made and paper made bags come to our intellect. Both are fine, but the question is, which one is the best suited to our requirements. Lets discuss the peculiarities related with the two.

You might be thinking that paper bags are not as durable as those made of plastic. Also, we see that the latter are more commonly used than the former one. But, do you know plastic is a stuff which is really hazardous to the environment. It takes thousands of year to decompose. If burnt, it emits poisonous gases which again pollutes the environment. If buried in the ground, it makes the soil infertile. If thrown in the sea, it pollutes the sea water and proves to be a threat for the life of the sea creatures. One can imagine, how hazardous is plastic to our planet.

This perilous nature of plastic had forced the governments of many cities of the world to put a ban on the use of poly-bags, which are a major source of plastic pollution. Few cities of the world in which these polythene carriers are either completely or partially banned include San Francisco, New York, Texas, Germany, Dhaka, China, Kenya and Ireland to name a few. Even the government of Delhi had issued guidelines against the use of polythene. However, later on the government changed its decision to completely ban the polythene, due to some reasons. Government suggested the manufacturers to set up the recycling units on the basis of “polluter pays principles”. But the government has not completely given up the plan to ban these polythene carriers, it is in the pipeline.

In this context, paper bags are the best option. No doubt, they are unconventional, but they are eco-friendly and easy to recycle. Nowadays, there are various types of paper made bags available in the market. They are not only good looking, but also have ample of space to carry goods and are quite durable. The handmade paper bags available nowadays are designed to suit specific requirements which include carrying gifts, carrying wine, shopping etc. There is a separate bag to serve each purpose. Although, multipurpose bags are also made from paper. They are proving to be the best substitute for plastic or polythene carriers in the modern context.

Now, as we have told you every significant fact related to plastic and paper bags, It’s upon you which one to choose. The hazardous and non-disposable polythene, or the environment friendly and elegant paper bags.

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.

The hard truth is that we all need to reduce. Reduce the amount of money we spend. Reduce the amount of food we eat…and our waistlines. And reduce the amount of stuff we throw away. In fact new we look at the 3 R’s of reduce, reuse, recycle, they are actually in that order for a reason. It is a hierarchy for a reason and reduce is the Holy Grail. Put in its simplest terms reduce means that we use less of the earth’s resources and in any environmental scheme should be our first priority.

That said, it is also the hardest to accomplish. When I thought about all the things we do to be greener, the number of examples of reducing stumped me. I suppose the most obvious example of our efforts to reduce was the decision some months ago, not to purchase an automobile. My husband has the use of a company van, but even that is rarely used. The difficulty comes when we want to go anywhere as a family. The work van has only one bucket seat in the front that fits three people. Obviously this presents difficulties. Even on our Saturday shopping trips with my mother-in-law, I end up sitting in the back of van; a solution that is both dangerous and illegal for the children. About a year ago, when I was working full-time, we were seriously considering buying a vehicle. But in the end, we thought the expense was too much when you consider not just payments, but insurance, road tax, maintenance and gas. Instead, we signed up for StreetCar; a car rental scheme that you pay a monthly fee to join and an hourly or daily rate only when you need to use a car or van. Looking back, that was one of the best decisions we have made both for the environment and family finances.

The other obvious example I found of reduction was our decision a year ago to switch to bags for life. We now have a stack of them beneath our kitchen sink and faithfully use them for our Saturday shops. But I do admit to occasionally forgetting them when just running out to grab something quickly. When this happens though, we make certain to re-use (we’ll talk more about that tomorrow) any plastic bags we get for outings or for small bin liners. Did you know that in the UK alone 100,000 TONNES of plastic bags are thrown away each year; that is the equivalent of 70,000 cars? So if there is one thing, I can encourage you to do, it is purchase bags for life. My store sells the sturdy plastic ones for about forty pence, the jute ones are about a pound, and the pretty cloth ones are about three pounds with a portion of the proceeds going to charity. Or it is very simple to make your own if you sew.

Speaking of which, sewing and mending our clothes is another excellent way of reducing. My boys from my husband to my sons are always wearing holes in their jeans on the inside thighs. Before the economic downturn, I admit we were likely to just toss them out and purchase new ones. But since I have not been working, we have instead taken them to the drycleaners and had them patched. The cost of the repairs is less than the cost of purchasing new (although I am committed to mending them myself from now on…a further savings). And we have reduced in a very small way the demand for jeans.

Of course, as I sit at my desk in my bedroom I am witnessing another reduction…the daylight streaming in through the open curtains. One of the first things I do each morning is open the curtains and the blinds. By using natural light when and where possible, we are reducing the amount of electricity that we consume and that the power grids must generate. We are also of course saving money on our bills. My husband is a genius at this; going around and turning off and unplugging everything he can each night before bed. I admit though that being American this whole switch on the plug thing still gets me and I often forget to do that, but I am improving. Of course, another example was turning down our thermostat during the winter and wearing heavier layers of clothes instead. In fact, I can think of only a couple of days this winter when we turned our heat on before night fall at all.

These are just a few ideas of ways that our family is reducing. There are many other things that we and you can do to cut back on the things we consume and help save our earth’s precious resources. On Friday as I said, we will do a mini-inventory and I will commit to new ideas on how our family can better live the 3 R’s reduce, re-use, recycle. I will be especially focusing on reducing since this is the most important of the R’s.

Bags hold an important place in our lives. They are sometimes referred to as the best personal carriers. They are made of various stuffs like cotton, synthetic, leather and so. But when it comes to general usage like for shopping, the names of two types of bags viz. plastic made and paper made bags come to our intellect. Both are fine, but the question is, which one is the best suited to our requirements. Lets discuss the peculiarities related with the two.

You might be thinking that paper bags are not as durable as those made of plastic. Also, we see that the latter are more commonly used than the former one. But, do you know plastic is a stuff which is really hazardous to the environment. It takes thousands of year to decompose. If burnt, it emits poisonous gases which again pollutes the environment. If buried in the ground, it makes the soil infertile. If thrown in the sea, it pollutes the sea water and proves to be a threat for the life of the sea creatures. One can imagine, how hazardous is plastic to our planet.

This perilous nature of plastic had forced the governments of many cities of the world to put a ban on the use of poly-bags, which are a major source of plastic pollution. Few cities of the world in which these polythene carriers are either completely or partially banned include San Francisco, New York, Texas, Germany, Dhaka, China, Kenya and Ireland to name a few. Even the government of Delhi had issued guidelines against the use of polythene. However, later on the government changed its decision to completely ban the polythene, due to some reasons. Government suggested the manufacturers to set up the recycling units on the basis of “polluter pays principles”. But the government has not completely given up the plan to ban these polythene carriers, it is in the pipeline.

In this context, paper bags are the best option. No doubt, they are unconventional, but they are eco-friendly and easy to recycle. Nowadays, there are various types of paper made bags available in the market. They are not only good looking, but also have ample of space to carry goods and are quite durable. The handmade paper bags available nowadays are designed to suit specific requirements which include carrying gifts, carrying wine, shopping etc. There is a separate bag to serve each purpose. Although, multipurpose bags are also made from paper. They are proving to be the best substitute for plastic or polythene carriers in the modern context.

Now, as we have told you every significant fact related to plastic and paper bags, It’s upon you which one to choose. The hazardous and non-disposable polythene, or the environment friendly and elegant paper bags.

The newly formed Obama administration has listed greenhouse gas (GHG) tracking and reporting as a major goal, with the objective of protecting the future of the environment by reducing today’s carbon footprint. If no action were taken, the makeup of the earth would significantly altered. Future actions will establish a market drive carbon cap and trade program to drive GHG emissions reductions.

Greenhouse Gas tracking is outlined in The Climate Registry Protocol, which details the requirements for mandatory monitoring and tracking. The premise around greenhouse gas tracking are included in the U.S. Clean Air Act, aimed at improving air quality and lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes mandatory reporting of the gases contributing to global climate change from about 13,000 facilities nationwide. These facilities account for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions within the United States and present a logical starting point for emissions reductions in the US. The regulation would cover companies that either release large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) directly or produce or import fuels and chemicals that when burned emit large amounts of carbon (CO2) gases.

One of the major focuses of the Greenhouse Gas tracking protocol is refrigerant gases used in refrigeration and cooling systems by numerous facilities, including manufacturers, food processors, retailers, grocery stores, office buildings, municipalities and hospitals, just to name a few. Because of their chemical makeup, refrigerant gases contain significant levels of carbon in the form of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Use of these compounds has been regulated under the U.S. Clean Air Act for several years.

Greenhouse gases absorb and release radiation into the atmosphere, setting off a global warming effect on earth. The intent and overall goal of GHG tracking relates to better collection and management of the emissions data now so informed decisions can be made about future carbon trading schemes. The tracking protocols also help government entities to more accurately inventory the amounts of emissions reaching the atmosphere. The new GHG legislation puts in motion the data collection, organization, and first stage reporting mechanisms to allow the US to accurately calculate and maintain a GHG emissions baseline across the entire economy. This will allow for better understanding today as well as to determine progress for future Cap and Trade programs. With this accurate information, it can be determined if the guidelines are effective in lowering the harmful effects of these substances to the ozone layer.

Greenhouse Gas tracking involves measuring direct and indirect emissions and keeping extensive records on its usage, maintenance, leak containment and disposal. Heating and cooling systems, as well as other energy consumption, are defined as direct emissions.

Better and more effective GHG management is an objective of the current US government. No longer will the US sit by and watch the world attack the issue of climate change. The US is now taking action to lower carbon emissions to the betterment of future generations. By taking no action, the earth’s makeup would significantly change, with humans and animals adversely affected and marine and plant life severely damaged.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) management and reporting is now falling under the EPA regulations contained within The U.S. Clean Air Act because the causes of global climate change is now well know. Human activities and the use of global warming substances, like refrigerant gases, are all leading to increased global warming. The substances are carbon dioxide, chlorine, bromine, nitrous oxide, chloroflurocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, methyl bromide, methyl chloroform, sulfur hexafluoride, hydroxyl, perfluorocarbobs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, fluorine, and the fluorinated gases hydrofluorinated ethers and nitrogen trifluoride. The mandatory law is aimed at reducing the use of these substances to lower the effects of global warming.

Beginning in 2010, GHG management, tracking, and reporting will be environmental law for the highest emitting facilities. Part of the management will revolve around better tracking and reporting of refrigerant gases. Entities must submit usage reports and service records for all refrigerants having high GWP. Special calculations are applied to refrigerants when any leads occur. The GHG emission reporting rules and related protocols allow for progressive companies to take advantage of software already created to help with carbon emissions reporting. Some web applications allow organizations to track GHGs to the asset level across global, distributed facilities.

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