Ringing in the new Year with one big "green" ball!

The New Year's Eve ball that will drop at midnight EST tonight is green(er) this year thanks to the 32,256 LED lights that light it, instead of the old halogen bulbs. The ball is larger than in past years but more energy efficient; It consumes the same energy per hour as two traditional home ovens.

For a fairly technical explanation about how LEDs work, click here.

Happy New Year!

Column: Easy green in winter

In the El Paso Times today:

Opportunities await to make huge impact on energy bill

Louie Gilot / Special to the Times

Posted: 12/31/2009 12:00:00 AM MST

EL PASO -- To paraphrase Kermit the Frog, "It's not easy being green."
Outfitting your home with solar panels can set you back $20,000. The panels won't work on overcast days, and you have to keep these puppies clean, like your windshield. Nope, green is not easy and it's not cheap. But before you take out a loan for photovoltaic cells, there are many things you can do right away, for little or no money, that will make a huge impact on your energy bill and your carbon footprint.

Recycle your live Christmas tree

From the City's Environmental Services:

El Pasoans can dispose of their live tree (free of tinsel and ornaments) by taking it to one of the five Citizens' Collection Stations through Jan. 23. The stations are open 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday (Closed New Year's Day). They are located at 121 Atlantic (off Doniphan); 2492 Harrison @ Alabama; 9000 Escobar @ Zaragoza; 4200 Delta; and 4501 Hondo Pass.

Mulch and wood chips from the trees (good for enriching the soil in your garden and controlling weeds) will be available for free at the Atlantic, Hondo Pass and Escobar location starting Jan. 2.

For more information, call (915) 621-6700.

I went hiking for the first time in, like, 10 years

 

 

It was great. Now, let's be honest. It's like most New Year's resolutions; It might not stick. It might be another ten years until I do the mountain goat again.

My green Christmas

This is the gift bag that everyone in my family got. It contains two reusable bags (pink and red for girls and black and green for boys), two CFL bulbs (they last five to seven years), a stainless steel or hard plastic water bottle and a bottle scrubber, and a pack of LED Christmas lights.

It was received with chuckles and eye rolling, but, hey, it's a start!

Contentious encounters

I never thought a scientifically-proven climate phenomenon such as global warming would trigger such violent emotions. But since I started the columns and the blog, I can't go anywhere without getting forced into a debate. Deniers are everywhere. Even at the bank. My banker does not believe in climate change and the other day, started listing the deniers' "scientific" arguments, which include the supposed Medieval warming period in Europe (not warmer than now, scientists say) and the fact that polar ice is recovering (seasonal fluctuations don't disprove longer trend).

This made me realize that I needed to do more homework. This is unnerving because there is a huge, global scientific consensus that, contrary to this Wall Street Journal's opinion editorial, cannot be manufactured. But since detractors are burning to play experts, I will have to look into it as well. A good place to start is the BBC and How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Or I could just follow my friend's advice: "Why don't you blog about a subject that's less contentious? Like God."

Snow in Paris

My friend sent me these pictures of Paris under the snow. Yes, it's not helping my global warming argument, but it's so pretty! It's also a good time to remind all that global warming does occur despite shorter temperature fluctuations due, for instance, to El Nino-La Nina phenomena.

Copenhagen is over; Back to work!

OK. Time to stop feeling sorry for ourselves and get back to work. The action will now retreat to the national arenas. In the United States, this means two things: 1) Cap-and-trade legislation in Congress, and 2) Public opinion.

Having public opinion favorable to action on climate change is key, yet this might be the hardest battle. When President George W. Bush finally reversed his stance and acknowledged the existence of global warming, I thought the debate was closed. But I was wrong. W. was not the last frontier and climate change deniers -"flat-earthers" as UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown called them- have gotten their second wind.

Shockingly, at the same time as the scientific consensus is becoming overwhelmingly accepted by the political elites, there has been a regression in the public opinion. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that the percentage of Americans who believe the Earth is warming has fallen from 71% in April 2008, to 57% this fall. We need a plan, my friends. Any suggestions?

Lipstick on a pig at Copenhagen?

So the United Nations Conference on Climate Change at Copenhagen has ended and our brave world leaders are -not altogether convincingly- calling it a "good start." That's nice, except the many conventions that built up to Copenhagen, Bali and others, were supposed to be the "good starts." Copenhagen was supposed to be the "happy ending," or at least the blue print for a happy ending.

I, for one, am disappointed. There was a last-minute agreement between major emitters including the U.S., India and China, which could be made legally binding this coming year. This already falls short of the Copenhagen vision on many levels. It is not a holistic pact that would involve all nations; it doesn't spell out specific reduction targets; it alienated smaller developing nations.

I was on the radio and I said something stupid

So I was on the radio today from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., on Jaime Abeytia's radio show on 1150 AM. And of course, I said something stupid right when conservative talk show host Greg Freyermuth was listening so he's bound to bring it up on his show.

Jaime asked me what is the one thing that people can do to help with climate change in their daily life that would make the most impact. I said that statistically one of the things that emit a disproportionate amount of CO2 in the air per person is taking a plane. So we could try to limit our plane travel. It's true, but it's also stupid.

Column: Dreaming of a green Christmas

Dreaming of a green Christmas

By Louie Gilot / Special to the El Paso Times

Posted: 12/17/2009 12:00:00 AM MST

EL PASO -- The holidays are a time of joy, excess and guilt. Holiday celebrations are good for the heart, but not so good for our health and downright bad for the environment. We travel to be with family, taking cars and planes that emit carbon dioxide and contribute to global warming. We spend money on items that seem to go straight from the store shelves to the trash can -- wrapping paper, anyone? We buy too much. We eat too much. So why not keep the joy of the holidays, but do away with excess and guilt?

Why not have a green Christmas this year? Get your family on board first. Explain that you won't force everyone to participate and you won't go overboard; there will be no Tofurkey (faux turkey made of tofu) on the table. You just want to follow some sound, green principles. You'll pay attention not only to what went into making a product but also to where it was made (if it had to be flown around the world to get to you, it's not green). You'll think about its energy efficiency, and about its afterlife. You'll talk about what you've learned and most of all, you'll have fun.

Tips after the jump.

Building capacity beyond Copenhagen

In his blog, BBC environmental correspondent Richard Black, marvels at the ambition and complexity of the Copenhagen negotiations saying, "never before has there been a UN negotiation on issues with environmental, economic and legal implications conducted by heads of state and government."

"Think of the complexity and the side-issues this negotiation drags in: overseas aid, economic development, colonialism old and new, legal rights to inspect other governments' actions, the breaking of historical promises on cutting carbon... and the reasons why European Commission negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger concluded that "in many cases we have exhausted the technical work, and it is time for a political choice to be made" become clear."

This is a tremendous example of cooperation which, unless it is a catastrophic failure, will translate in better cooperation in other realms. We could build on this experience to tackle other scourges such as global poverty and health calamities. Or am I making too much of this?

Why should we pay for developing nations?

Yesterday's outburst by developing countries at Copenhagen bring up a question. Since Kyoto, the model for international agreements on climate change includes two parts: 1) Developed countries, aka Annex I countries in the Kyoto lingo, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and 2) give financial aid and technology to developing countries to limit their own emissions.

Why is this so? Two reasons. One is practical -Developing countries do not have the resources to change their energy sources. Without help to develop clean energy sources, they'll continue relying heavily on cheap coal. The second reason is moral. The developed world has emitted freely and widely on its way to economic dominance. Now that the consequences of this free for all have become painfully clear, the developing world is being told that the rules of the game have changed. Now, they have to cripple their economic growth efforts by eschewing the same quick and dirty technologies that have served us so well. No wonder they are crying, Foul!

Copenhagen Week 2: Things heat up

While week 1 had its share of speeches and protests, the actual substance of teh closed-door negotiations was elusive. But some details are starting to emerge now.

Predictably, tensions are rising between developing and developed countries. Today, African nations burst out, accusing developed nations of trying to sideline poorer countries by letting the Kyoto Protocol end (in 2012) before new climate change instruments are in place.

While developed countries are historically responsible for most of greenhouse gas emissions, it is the developing world that is bearing the price. In Africa, drought are more and more common, leading to smaller harvests, famine, health issues and larger populations of economic refugees. We can also expect that with fewer resources available, violence will break out for control over said resources. Some experts have contended that the practice of piracy in Somalia is largely due to diminishing natural resources.

How do we know humans are causing climate change?

I just took a look at the comments on the El Paso Times Wed site after my column on the need for Copenhagen to accomplish something resembling a deal. Four comments, including one from a guy calling himself "Professor." All called climate warming a hoax and seemed to take this meteorological phenomenon as a personal insult. The "Professor," whose scientific credentials remain unclear, said carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas, not at all caused by human behavior.

So, how do we know climate change is caused by humans? It's true that carbon dioxide (which, by the way is only one of several greenhouse gases) occurs in nature. A lot of natural processes can impact the C02 levels, such as solar activity. However, carbon molecules that come from burning fossil fuel (which only we, humans, do) are heavier than other carbon molecules. Scientists have been measuring the weight of carbon molecules and can tell how the carbon was generated.

There are other ways scientists know humans are responsible for a great portion of greenhouse gases. But I don't want to blow the "Professor's" mind. For those who want to look further into it, check out the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the UK Science Museum.

Opinion Editorial: Once "Hopenhagen," Now Just Copenhagen

TODAY IN THE EL PASO TIMES!

 

Once Hopenhagen on greenhouse gases, it's now just Copenhagen

By Louie Gilot / Guest columnist

Posted: 12/13/2009 12:00:00 AM MST

As we enter the second week of negotiations of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change at Copenhagen, which looks no more likely to produce a binding agreement than the first week, it's funny to remember how different things were just a year ago.

A year ago, there was still so much hope for Copenhagen. Heck, people called it "Hopenhagen."

Representatives from nearly 200 nations would be getting together to sign the successor of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. It would be a better treaty, with real teeth. Developed countries, which had been emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with abandon in their race for industrial dominance would agree to mandatory reductions in emissions levels. They would also give financial aid to help developing nations develop cleanly.

This was not as naive as it now sounds.

Waiting for Copenhagen

Since it's really hard to figure out what's happening at Copenhagen inside the many different -and closed- negotiation rooms (reporters are said to be roaming the hallways looking for crumbs of information), I've been distracting myself by roaming climate change pages and blogs.

I found this awesome video at The Guardian newspaper about a guy in Russia who has to raise the floor of his house because the permafrost is melting, flooding his first floor. So now that the floor is raised, he lookd like a giant, or rather like Alice in Wonderland, having to bend to go through doorways. A pretty striking visual.

Guilty Greenga

La Greenga is feeling guilty. She went on a business trip by plane (bad), had snacks on the plane, drinking water out of a plastic cup that went straight into the flight attendant big plastic trash bag, along with an unused napkin and the plastic wrapper for the pretzels (bad, bad, and bad).

Ironically, I was reading a special report on climate change in The Economist (good?).

The report, Stopping Climate Change, equated combating climate change with taking an insurance policy for our children. We don't know how bad and how fast the deterioration will happen (They said the warming could even self-correct) but under the circumstances, it makes sense to protect humanity from the risks. This "insurance policy" would cost only 1% of the world's GDP IF (a big "if") the money is applied efficiently. To The Economist writers, the most efficient way would be use public money to leverage private investment and set off the costs of going clean.

Stupid Climate-gate!

I wasn’t going to say anything about the climate-gate scandal but last night, my husband asked me about it and I feel I need to nip it in the bud because he likes to believe a lot of crazy things (He reads Dan Brown).

So this whole thing is about a set of emails leaked from a research facility in England where two scientists discuss how two papers that were skeptic about climate change should never have been published. Some people see in it a conspiracy to keep dissenting voices out. (The Pew Center on Climate Change says the papers in questions were subpar.)

Silly scientists! (Not to be confused with Nutty Professors, see picture.)

None of this is proof that climate change is a hoax. Climate change is science, not complete certainty, but hundreds, if not thousands of top scientists around the world agree to its main principles. 1) The world is warming to a dangerous level at an alarming pace, and 2) human activity is contributing to it. The only dissent that exists is regarding the extent of the damage that will ensue.

So, unless you are willing to believe in a worldwide conspiracy of scientists, all with different backgrounds and allegiances, to have us all driving hybrids, Climate-gate is a stupid distraction. On with Copenhagen!

EPA doing the right thing on climate change

Another reason to be optmistic today: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson formally designated carbon dioxide as a public danger so it can cut emissions without having to wait for the Senate to pass climate change legislation. What the EPA will do with that designation remains to be seen (caps on coal plants? Cars?) but the pro-activeness of the announcement should be applauded. As well as the timing. Surely, it provided a boost at the opening of the U.N. Conference on Climate Change at Copenhagen (photo from New York Times).

Speaking of Copenhagen, 56 newspapers in 45 countries published a common editorial on climate change today. Full text after the break.

Against all odds: Optimism at Copenhagen

The United Nations Conference on Climate Change at Copenhagen starts tomorrow with renewed -one could say highly delusional- optimism.

Last month, President Obama came clean and said there wasn't going to be a legally-binding agreement at the two-week conference. This wasn't exactly a surprise. The United States had begged off Copenhagen's predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol. Plus, an international agreement on climate change now could derail the climate change legislation still stuck in Congress. And finally, an agreement at Copenhagen would not only mandate emissions reduction but also financial aid to developing nations to do the same, not an appealing prospect in time of economic uncertainty and unpopular bailouts.

Still, Copenhagen participants saw Obama's one-day visit to the conference -Wednesday- as a great omen. The stakes are high so let's hope they are right....

Awesome Energy Star home animation

This is just the best, most user-friendly and fun, animation about greening your home. You can visit each room and get tips on how to save energy.