What's the least green thing you do?

Dude, you've got to start us off by telling us yours!

Me, I tend to use a lot of electronics (computer, iPod, TV, etc.), and there's a farmer's market not too far away, but I'm too lazy to go there.  I'll try to think of a better one...

 Not recycling water bottles, cans, newspapers, etc. is pretty bad - but the "worst", I don't know - probably just not being aware of consumption.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this one, but I fly a decent amount. My family is in Texas and Virginia (I'm in California) so I end up in airplanes for holidays.

I thought of a better one - I eat a fair bit of meat.  Though I have reduced my beef consumption lately.

Is eating beef not green?  I know it takes a wastefully-large amount of grain to feed a cow, but how about organic/free-range/grass fed?  What makes beef way less eco-conscious than chicken or other animals?  A

For one thing cows are ruminant animals, meaning they emit a fair amount of methane via burping and cowpatties.  The main impact cows have is due to the large amounts of pastureland they require.  Land use change is the biggest contributor to global warming.

I've got a couple of discussions of this issue here and here, based on this UN Food and Agriculture Organization report.

"..the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport"  

WOW that is unexpected.  i had no idea.  thanks for the references, dana.  am i the only one who was unaware of this?  i guess i wonder if it's realistic to tell people they can't/shouldn't eat beef...are there other solutions aside from just weaning people off of it?  

other excerpts from a report by the food and agri organization of the UN:

"Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface"

"...in Latin America...some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing"

"...the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure."

You're welcome.  Yeah, I was similarly shocked when I first read them.  18%?!  That's crazy.  I initially thought it was about 5%, but that didn't take into account the land use changes from all the pasture the livestock require.

I consider myself really well-informed on global warming, but I really had no idea what a huge impact livestock and meat in general has.  I wish it was more common knowledge, considering the vast number of fast food burger joints we have in the US.

As for other solutions - not really.  Some scientists are working on decreasing the amount of methane released by ruminants, but that doesn't address the land use problem.  In particular the destruction of the Amazon for pastureland is a huge problem, as you noted.  That was an issue for McDonald's not too long ago, though they claim they've stopped using cattle raised on former rainforest land.

Really the only simple solution is to reduce our beef consumption.  There are of course issues with other meat sources as well, mainly because we've begun to rely on factory farming.  Bad plan.  Now you get ponds full of animal waste with nowhere to put it.  Fish would be a good alternative, except overfishing is already a major problem.  Really we'd be better off if more people were vegetarian, but I'd have a hard time with that myself.  There aren't a lot of vegetables that I like.

But anyway, the logical first step would be to reduce beef consumption.  I did as soon as I read this report.

 That is total dedication -- impressive!  I don't eat much beef, but I'll definitely think twice before ordering a steak...

What about this innovation?  Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) sounds like an interesting possibility...I'm pretty unfamiliar with the technology, but came across this article and am intrigued.  Sounds like one obvious issue is in the storage of whatever CO2 is being captured....

Very detailed/scientific description of the process (from the link above).  Most of it is totally over my head, but it's interesting, process-wise....:

"In the chilled ammonia capture system, flue gas is cooled to 0-10°C, condensing water and removing residual contaminants. This also reduces flue gas volume, increasing the concentration of CO₂. This cooled gas then flows to the absorber, which operates at 0-10°C for high CO₂ capture and low ammonia emission.

There, the ammonia reacts with CO₂ and water to form ammonia carbonate or bicarbonate. Raising the temperature to 120°C or more and pressure to above 20 bar reverses the reaction, generating a high pressure CO₂ stream with low moisture and ammonia concentration. The CO₂ can then be processed for sequestration."

Mmmm...mine's gotta be...take-out in styrofoam clamshell containers that end up in our landfill. I need to keep a supply of reusable container(s) in the car like I do with my cloth shopping bags.

Heh yeah, those styrafoam take-out containers are a pain.  Bringing your own tupperware is a good idea.  I might try that too.

Carbon capture and storage is an interesting idea, but like you said, the problem is with the storage part.  The usual suggestion is to trap the CO2 in stable geologic formations.  The problem is that there's only so many of those on the planet.  They have to be really careful, because if the CO2 gets released, the process isn't doing us any good.  If it all gets released at once, it can displace the oxygen in the air above and kill whatever is in the area, so there's some danger associated with the process as well.

The way I think of it is potentially a good stopgap measure to capture coal power plant CO2 emissions in the short-term while we switch to more renewable energy plants.  It won't work as a long-term solution, unfortunately.

No, but I'm sure they'd be careful to avoid that.

Another suggestion has been to capture the CO2 and then release the gas into tar sands (I think, something like that) to enable us to acquire new sources of oil.

Needless to say, using carbon capture to obtain new sources of fossil fuels is a bit counter-productive!

I think having kids is the least green thing you can do.   I know that's not a popular opinion.

The earth can only support so many people sustainably in a way that preserves the environment the way we'd like it to be - clean and ample water, air and food for everyone.  I have seen various research on this topic, and the number that most researchers (the ones I've read) seem to agree on is about 1 billion.  This is the population that would be reasonable to expect in a world without oil.

Too many people is the real reason we're in the mess we're in. 

So... hard to hear, harder to do for most I'm sure... If you really want to save the planet, don't have kids.  

That's a valid point.  One of the reasons livestock are such large contributors to global warming is the high demand for beef due to the large population.  It's also the main reason overfishing is a big problem.  There's just too many darn people.

I agree! I also tend to get negative reactions when I say things like "I don't want kids. Ever." But it's a choice we make, one way or another. Don't knock the facts of the matter, right?

Anyway, my least green habits:

I take really hot, long showers. Normally they're around 10-15min, but if I want to shave or someting it goes longer. It takes a lot of energy to heat water, so shorter (or colder... ug) showers are better. I think I might buy a little kitchen timer to remind myself to hurry up.

Also, I spend most of the day on a computer. I need to get out more! I do go running and do socialize with friends and family, but when I'm not doing those things... it's back to the screen for me. If only I could stream-line my blogging activities...

An interesting article on TreeHugger  today about the possibility of using some captured carbon to make CDs and DVDs.

"Thomas E. Müller, a scientist at the research center for catalysis, CAT, said that the supply of readily available carbon dioxide would provide a "very cheap starting material" that could replace some of the costlier ones and seed the necessary "economic driving force" to bring the process to mass market. A Japanese research team from the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, led by Toshiyasu Sakaura, also found that using carbon dioxide as an alternate "feedstock" to make plastics and battery components was a cost-effective, easy process."

Well, I know that flying is one of the worst in regards to carbon emissions (I don't own a car and use City Car Share - rarely - when I do need one). I usually end of flying somewhere a couple times a year. Last time was to an Earthwatch expedition to monitor climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Thing is, the climate doesn't care why I was flying, so that warm fuzzy of traveling to help scientific research doesn't really wash.

I work as a freelance writer by day and sound engineer by night, so I use a lot of electricity (power up those amps and computers!) and go through a lot of batteries for wireless microphones. The thing with using a wireless mic in a performance situation is that you can't use the batteries through its entire life cycle, otherwise you'll have a dead mic onstage and one pissed off performer.

I recycle batteries, of course, and give a lot away to colleagues to use in flashlights and such, but it just isn't very green.

-Tom

I've got good AA rechargeable batteries, but I'm guessing microphones need larger batteries than that.  Still, I bet you could find some decent rechargeable C or D cell or whatever you need and a charger.  Ever tried it?

Actually most wireless mics either use AA or 9V batteries. But batteries are tricky things.

While it may be possible to use rechargables, they have a tendency to fail to rather inopportune times. And trying to use your garden variety standard battery that you get for a buck or so at Walgreens is simply inviting disaster - where an "industrial strength" battery (think little pink bunnies with shades on or better) will last from two to four shows (depending on the mic) before showing too much voltage drop (at 90 minutes per show) a cheap battery will last ten minutes - literally (I know from experience).

All that said, I should propably look into rechargables again - or make more money as a writer and stop eating batteries for a living!!

Stins, the Earthwatch expedition was quite an adventure. Here are some links describing the work and experience I posted on my global warming blog and on "Chastise Man" (my rant blog):

Field Update #1

Field Update #2
"We're Saving the World"

On Polar Bears

One of the 10 worst jobs in science

I hope that isn't too much, but they're all pretty short posts except the one on polar bears.

Yeah those were really interesting.  I particularly liked the one on polar bears.  I frequent the Environment section of Yahoo Answers, and a common argument we get from global warming 'skeptics' is that polar bear populations are doing fine, thus obviously global warming is nothing more than a massive hoax.  It was interesting to read what an actual scientist studying polar bear populations had to say about this.

Dana - Thanks for checking these out. I felt very lucky to have the one-on-one time with NIck Lunn. It's sometimes very frustrating to see how the work of scientists is mangled when reported and discussed in the general media.

Man tell me about it, I couldn't agree with you more.  Especially when the media involved is some internet blogger who has no idea what he's talking about, but says something so controversial that it gets picked up by a bunch of other media sources.

In particular there's this technology website called DailyTech which for some reason every so often runs blogs on climate change.  January 2008 happened to be a relatively cold month because of a strong La Nina cycle, and DailyTech ran an article saying that global warming had been "wiped out" and "erased".  A bunch of other (mostly politically biased) media outlets picked up this story, and it was all over the place.  People were going crazy saying global warming had stopped and the whole thing was a scam to begin with and we were now headed for global cooling, etc. etc.  Fast forward 2 months later, and March 2008 was the warmest month since January 2007, which was the single warmest single month ever recorded.  Everybody got all worked up about something completely inconsequential because of one bad blog.

Same deal with the polar bears.  A lot of people bring up Gore's film because he's the easiest target and complain that it showed a computer generated polar bear drowning, and they just look at the raw numbers of polar bears increasing without considering why they've increased.  It's nice to hear directly from the scientists who monitor polar bear populations to get a sense of what's actually happening, rather than people just ignorantly speculating.  So that was a very interesting blog.  The difference being that you talked to a scientific expert, whereas the DailyTech blog arrived at its own erroneus conclusions without consulting any experts.

We have a swimming pool that still uses Cholorine. Tho we converted to Solar and Greywater. So I guess we are trying our hardest...We do have plans to convert the pool.

Wow, Earthmama I'm suprised your children with asthma and chemical sensitivity can handle chlorine in the pool, I know some people who have switched over to salt water and love it!

I have been known to splurge on un-organic cotton clothing.  I am a sucker for fashion at times, it is a weakness :(