A Carbon footprint is a rough measure of green house gas emissions in the atmosphere by human activity. It is measured in terms of units of carbon dioxide (CO2). On an average, each individual has a carbon footprint of approximately 8 tons annually. Carbon dioxide is produced from every human activity right from cooking, leaving lights on, driving a car and refrigeration, to throwing a wrapper on the streets. Almost every one of our activities results in carbon emissions. All these seemingly inconsequential acts add up rapidly, thus contributing to global warming, which is one of the greatest threats faced by the planet today. Principally, a carbon footprint is the amount of fuel consumed by an individual in a span of one year. The concept of the carbon footprint is essential to understand the impression that personal comportment has on the atmosphere and on global warming.

The first step to reducing ones carbon footprint is to understand how it occurs, and then recording it. Several carbon footprint calculators are available through the Internet today. These calculators enable us to keep a tap on our fuel usage and other activities and see the amount of CO2 generated through each activity. Only such awareness can help to reduce the carbon footprint at an individual level, as people will know which part of their lifestyle needs to be changed. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a popular system used to determine a carbon footprint. Even simple changes in an individuals personal habits can make a world of difference.

Electricity contributes maximum to carbon emissions. So one must make sure he/she turns off electronic appliances when not in use. Things like turning the heater or air-conditioned down by just 2 degrees makes a difference. If possible, one must also use electricity from renewable sources. Some areas have their own green suppliers who provide for renewable sources of energy. Sharing cars to work, walking to places of close proximity, driving less, using public transport are also major contributors. One must also recycle whenever and as much as possible, and use organic and home made products.

If each person in the world, from a population of nearly 6.7 billion, takes these simple steps, the threat of global warming will truly be brought under control.

The U.S. Congress not long ago ruled that 36 billion gallons of biofuels would be mixed into auto fuel by the year 2022. This would be a significant increase from the 12 billion gallons currently used in 2010. The majority of the biofuel being mixed into the auto fuel is in the form of ethanol. This new approval by the EPA will assist in meeting the goal recently passed by Congress.

EPA Chief Lisa Jackson stated: “Thorough testing has now shown that E15 does not harm emissions control equipment in newer cars and light trucks. Wherever sound science and the law support steps to allow more home-grown fuels in America’s vehicles, this administration takes those steps.”

However, the new approval is being met with harsh criticism by many different sectors. Environmentalists, automakers, food manufacturers and gas dealerships are all against the approval for E15 fuel. Ethanol production already uses one-third of America’s corn crop. Greater dependence on the fuel will put further pressures on all areas involved, including the land which it is grown.

A major concern involving greater use of ethanol is the likely spike in food prices. An increased demand for corn will likely cause the prices to continue to rise, which concerns food manufacturers, grocery chains and customers alike. The use of E15 is also causing great concern for gas dealerships, which may refuse to sell the fuel. According to automakers, increased ethanol in the fuel could damage engines and even rot fuel lines. If the fuel did end up harming a vehicle or any other device using the fuel, the gas station could be sued.

The EPA assures all those concerned that E15 fuel is in fact safe. However, those opposing the fuel are extremely skeptical. This is likely a debate that will continue up to and beyond the U.S. elections in November.

If we can replace conventional vehicles, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere will be reduced by 80%, and the success will mean further benefits: it will significantly reduce the ever-present traffic in major cities and air pollution will be reduced as well.

Planes continue to be a problem: people have more disposable income than ever before so they fly more often – huge passenger airliners are constantly taking off and landing, and the noise level is unbearable. This noise is the sound of a dying atmosphere; however, scientists already have new ideas aimed at reducing noise and limiting greenhouse gases emitted by the jets.

The largest airlines fund the research to solve these problems because they recognize that if not addressed, they may limit their further expansion. Because of the noise nobody wishes to live in a house with airports in its vicinity. Solving the problem of excessive noise could also result in further reducing carbon dioxide emissions because the roar of the aircraft is actually the sound of wasted fuel and, interestingly, it’s not the jet engines that are responsible for most of the noise. During the approach to landing, half of the noise is generated by the fuselage as it battles air resistance. The problem is the actual shape of the aircraft because its design has changed little since the first models of passenger planes: an oval body and two wings directed towards the rear. The air that flows around the vertical fin, wing tips and under the chassis generates resistance and the noise, and forces the engines to work harder, wasting thousands of gallons of fuel.

The key, therefore, may lie in overcoming air resistance which will reduce the noise and also decrease fuel consumption. Work on improving the future of aircrafts is carried out in many places, and it brings together the strengths of various individuals and institutions. Every new innovative solution is tested in a wind tunnel before being tested in an actual machine.

It is not easy to create an airplane that will be silent especially since our ears are able to adapt. In the struggle for noise and emissions reduction, researchers have taken decisive action, even using solutions employed during the Cold War. For instance, if horizontal ballasts are removed the air flows through freely without disturbing the plane’s surface. This, however, jeopardizes the stability of flight, especially at lower speeds so innovated electronic technologies must compensate.

The battle for a green and peaceful planet continues, but with each small innovation we are one baby step closer to achieving the goal.

Mercury emissions have been reduced largely in locations such as the United States, Russia and the European Union. However, as their emissions had declined, China’s have risen. China is now the leader in mercury pollution, accounting for nearly fifty percent of all mercury emissions. Mercury emissions are largely due to coal power plants, mining and various other sources, including home heating.

Approximately one hundred tons of mercury emissions make their way to the Arctic Ocean. The mercury in transferred by both air and waterways which enter the Arctic. The Arctic Monitoring report found that if acts are not taken to control mercury emissions, they will likely rise by twenty-five percent by the year 2020. However, if reductions are made by sixty percent, it could reduce the impact on the Arctic by approximately twenty percent.

Mercury pollution is not uncommon, especially in the world’s oceans as the majority of fish have some level of mercury within them. However, terrestrial species near Europe have shown some decrease in mercury levels as emission levels have decreased. This is not, however, the case for large mammals living in the Arctic, such as polar bears, seals and beluga whales which all have been found to have high levels of mercury.

Just as in humans, high levels of mercury consumption can negatively impact other species consuming mercury. Chemical imbalances, mental defects and reproduction difficulty are all side effects of high-mercury diets. The level of mercury found in these species concern the Arctic Council as the levels can put the species at greater risk of population declines and also spread to human populations that consume their flesh.

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program recommended worldwide agreements to reduce mercury pollution.

Water is very important for the life of man, animals as well as vegetation. Therefore additional care needs to be take care to conserve water. Rain harvesting is a traditional method of collecting and storing rain water for future use. There is a lot of talk about rain water harvesting and how beneficial it is. This is a method which has been used right from the ancient times.

There is an increase in demand for water due to urbanization and the surface water is inadequate and hence the dependence on ground water has increased. The infiltration of rain water into the soil has diminished the level of ground water and hence rain harvesting is becoming increasingly important. The water obtained through rain harvesting can be used for bathing, cleaning, and gardening. The water collected from these roof tops cannot be used for drinking purposes unless there is a proper purification method in place. However there are instances where rainwater is used for drinking also by following a suitable treatment.

One of the most common ways of rain harvesting is through a roof top system where the rainwater is directed to rain water containers or tanks, by using simple utensils. A new concept in rain harvesting is recharge to ground water where pits, dug wells, trenches etc are used to store water. Underground storage tanks are built along with the building construction. These rainwater containers can be buried in the ground or located in the basement.

Either of these technologies can be used as these are not very expensive, and they are very simple to use. Rainwater harvesting is something that can be easily taught to the local people. However the choice of the technology depends on the regional factors. This technology has very few negative environmental impacts.

We can ensure continuous water supply by adopting rain harvesting and reduce the impact on environment. There are very instances of illness occurring due to rainwater supply; hence it can be a very safe method of water conservation for the future, as water is the most important thing that we need to pass on to the future generations.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) recently released the 2010 statistics for the green power programs across the U.S.. According to NREL, 1.5 million customers now participate in the green power programs, customers which include universities and government agencies. Overall, the programs are supporting approximately 9,000 megawatts of renewable energy across the U.S..

More than 6 million megawatt-hours of renewable electricity were sold during 2010 through the green energy programs. According to the 2010 statistics, the top participants in the green energy program are Austin Energy, Portland General Electric, PacifiCorp, Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Xcel Energy. Austin Energy sold more than 740 million kilowatt-hours in 2010.

Currently, the most popular form of renewable energy in use in the green energy programs is wind. At least seventy-five percent of the energy attained through the programs is generated through wind. Other forms of renewable in use for the programs are solar, biomass, landfill gas, geothermal and hydropower.

While wind is the reigning champ in the green energy programs across the country, solar is increasing in popularity. Many of the utility companies are promoting the use of solar and contributing to the building of solar farms of varying sizes in the communities they serve.

Below you’ll find a list of all vehicles that are on the road today and are Flex Fuel cars. Meaning you can run you car on ethanol (E85) or regular fuel.

Currently ethanol isn’t as cheap as it can be, but there are more gas stations opening which offer it and with higher demand it will become cheaper. Ethanol is grown and produced in North America, meaning less dependency on foreign oil and creation of new jobs.

Beginning with 2007 models, the Chrysler Group vehicles capable of using both gasoline and ethanol will carry a special badge. The gas caps also will be yellow, the color associated with ethanol. In the near future maybe we’ll see more car manufactures advertising this feature of their vehicles.

Flex Fuel Car List

Daimler Chrysler

• 2007 
        4.7L Dodge Durango
        4.7L Dodge Ram Pickup 1500 Series
        4.7L Chrysler Aspen
        4.7L Jeep Commander
        4.7L Jeep Grand Cherokee
        4.7L Dodge Dakota
        3.3L Dodge Caravan, Grand Caravan and Caravan Cargo
        2.7L Chrysler Sebring Sedan

• 2006 
        4.7L Dodge Durango
        4.7L Dodge Ram Pickup 1500 Series
        2.7L Dodge Stratus Sedan
        2.7L Chrysler Sebring Sedan
        3.3L Caravan & Grand Caravan SE
• 2004 – 2005 
        4.7L Dodge Ram Pickup 1500 Series
        2.7L Dodge Stratus Sedan
        2.7L Chrysler Sebring Sedan
• 2003 – 2004 
        2.7L Dodge Stratus Sedan
        2.7L Chrysler Sebring Sedan
• 2003 
        3.3L Dodge Cargo Minivan
        2.7L Chrysler Sebring Convertible & Sedan
• 2000 – 2003 
        3.3L Chrysler Voyager minivan
        3.3L Dodge Caravan minivan
        3.3L Chrysler Town & Country minivan
• 1998 and 1999 
        3.3L Dodge Caravan minivan
        3.3L Plymouth Voyager minivan
        3.3L Chrysler Town & Country minivan   

Ford

• 2007 
        4.6L Ford Crown Victoria (2-valve, excluding taxi and police units)
        5.4L Ford F-150
        4.6L Lincoln Town Car (2-valve)

• 2006 
        3.0L Ford Taurus sedan and wagon (2-valve)*
        4.6L Ford Crown Victoria (2-valve, excluding taxi and police units)
        5.4L Ford F-150 (3-valve. Available in December 2005)
        4.6L Lincoln Town Car (2-valve)

  2004 – 2005 
        4.0L Explorer Sport Trac
        4.0L Explorer (4-door)
        3.0L Taurus sedan and wagon (2-valve)

• 2002 – 2004                                                          
        4.0L Explorer (4-door)
        3.0L Taurus sedan and wagon
• 2002 – 2003 
        3.0L Supercab Ranger pickup 2WD
• 2001 
        3.0L Supercab Ranger pickup 2WD
        3.0L Taurus LX, SE and SES sedan
• 1999 and 2000 
        3.0L Ranger pickup 4WD and 2WD
        3.0L Taurus LX, SE and SES sedan

General Motors

• 2007 
        5.3L V-8 engine Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra half-ton pickups 2WD & 4WD
        5.3L Vortec-engine Avalanche, Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon & Yukon XL
        3.5L Chevy Impala (LS, 1LT & 2LT)
        3.5L Chevy Monte Carlo (LS and LT models only) 5.3L Chevy Express 5.3L GMC Savana
        3.9L Chevy Uplander
        3.9L Pontiac Montana (Offered only in Canada and Mexico by special order)
        3.9L Saturn Relay
        3.9L Buick Terraza

• 2006 
        3.5L Chevy Impala (LS, 1LT & 2LT)
        3.5L Chevy Monte Carlo (LS and LT models only)
• 2005 – 2006 
        5.3L Vortec-engine Avalanche
        5.3L Vortec-engine Police Package Tahoe*
• 2003 – 2006 
        5.3L V-8 engine Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra half-ton pickups 2WD & 4WD
        5.3L Vortec-engine Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon and Yukon XLs
• 2002 
        5.3L V-8 engine Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra half-ton pickups 2WD & 4WD
        5.3L Vortec-engine Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon and Yukon XLs
        2.2L Chevrolet S-10 pickup 2WD
        2.2L Sonoma GMC pickup 2WD
  
  
• 2000 – 2001 
        2.2L Chevrolet S-10 pickup 2WD
        2.2L Sonoma GMC pickup 2WD

Isuzu

• 2000, 2001 
        2.2L Hombre pickup 2WD

Mazda

• 1999, 2001-2002 
        3.0L Selected B3000 pickups

Mercedes

• 2007 
        2.5L C230 Sedan automatic AND manual transmission

• 2005 
        2.6L C240 luxury series

• 2003-2005 
        3.2L Mercedes-Benz C320 sport series

Mercury

• 2006 – 2007 
        4.6L Mercury Grand Marquis (2-valve)

• 2002 – 2005 
        4.0L Mountaineers
        3.0L Sables
• 2000 – 2004 
        3.0L Sables
• 2007 
        5.6L Titan V8 engine
        5.6L Armada V8 engine

Nissan

• 2005 – 2006 
        5.6L Titan V8 engine

Scientists have been trying to grow future food crops in the petridish for long. But unlike high content food crops, growing meat is more of a recent development. Developmental biologist Vladimir Mironov, M.D., Ph.D. is one of the many who are sort of setting the pace in this new area.

Bioengineering ‘cultured meat’ could stave off a future food crisis. Current research underway at the Medical University of South Carolina by Dr. Mironov is just one of the cutting edge research project which is now a decade old.

But like any new research which seeks to break fresh grounds, the bumps of funding are very apparent. Dr. Mironov said to Reuters in an interview that the new National Institute of Food and Agriculture, part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, won’t fund it, the National Institutes of Health won’t fund it, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration funded it only briefly.

“It’s classic disruptive technology. Bringing any new technology on the market, average, costs $1 billion. We don’t even have $1 million.”

Nicholas Genovese, 32, a visiting scholar in cancer cell biology working under a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals three-year grant to run Dr. Mironov’s meat-growing lab offers a viewpoint of another problem -

“There’s a yuck factor when people find out meat is grown in a lab. They don’t like to associate technology with food. But there are a lot of products that we eat today that are considered natural that are produced in a similar manner. There’s yogurt, which is cultured yeast. You have wine production and beer production. These were not produced in laboratories. Society has accepted these products.”

But Dr. Mironov is nothing but a visionary when it comes to the present going forward into the future. He imagines football field-sized buildings filled with large bioreactors or bioreactors the size of a coffee machine in grocery stores, to fabricate what he brands as ‘charlem’ — Charleston engineered meat.

Dr. Mironov has extracted the embryonic cells of turkey and managed to culture animal tissue. But the ‘fat’ which gives meat its taste and essence is lacking. Even as research efforts continue along these lines, the benefits are clear to the scientists.

As Nicholas Genovese says – “Thirty percent of the earth’s land surface area is associated with producing animal protein on farms. Animals require between 3 and 8 pounds of nutrient to make 1 pound of meat. It’s fairly inefficient. Animals consume food and produce waste.”

Cultured meat could solve a lot of those problems.

The traditional way of determining a country’s greenhouse gas emissions involves taking into account all of their industries, car pollutants and various other means of  generating emissions. When determined in this manner, China is the top emissions producer in the world, having surpassed the United States some years ago. However, a new study is pointing to imports being a large contributor to a country’s emissions, emissions that are not counted towards the country that is importing.

Researchers based in the United States recently published their study on importing emissions in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal. The researchers determined emissions by studying global trade databases. The products used in a particular country were then counted towards that country’s emission levels, not the country that produced the products.

China, the current world leader in emissions, actually exports almost a quarter of the emissions they generate to western nations. In total, 22.5 percent of the emissions China produces each year are produced for products that are exported. Of this percentage, 7.8 percent is exported to the United States.

The United States, however, was not the country importing the greatest portion of emissions. France, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria import about a third of their emissions when determined in the manner of this study. Overall, European Union residents produce about 10 tons of carbon dioxide each year per resident. When this study is taken into account, the emissions increase to about 14 tons of carbon dioxide each year per resident.

This study supports many who claim the current emissions determination methods are inaccurate and benefit the rich nations of the world. The researchers of this study believe the richer nations should have a larger part in reducing emissions. However, there are those that feel the production of these exports benefit the country which is producing them and therefore they should be responsible for the generated emissions.

A conference will take place in Copenhagen, Denmark this December to discuss a new international treaty regarding climate change. Prior to this conference taking place, many countries are taking time to meet. This recently occurred when envoys from Japan, China and the EU were in Washington, D.C..

The group discussed the future conference in which China and the United States are being pressured to agree to terms in order to participate in the treaty. The current Kyoto Treaty was not ratified by either the United States or China due to their disagreements.

China is now requesting that their export sector be exempt from the treaty talks. China believes that the countries to which they send their exports should be responsible for the emissions caused from their manufacture. Since a great deal of goods are produced in China and exported elsewhere, China feels other countries involved with the trading should be responsible for paying to cut the subsequent emissions.

China estimates that upwards of twenty-five percent of all of China’s carbon emissions are the product of their exported goods. The overall estimate lies between fifteen and twenty-five percent. China’s climate change negotiator, Li Gao, stated: “These products are consumed by other countries [and] this share of emissions should be taken by the consumers but not the producers.”

Many countries are threatening to not agree to the future climate change treaty if China and the United States cannot come to terms. Clearly, the request being made by China may interfere with smooth treaty proceedings. Time will only tell what eventually happens in Copenhagen this December.