Tips Guides Resources

We are on the doorstep of environmental and energy crises. In 2003, the fourth hottest year since 1880, thirty-five thousand Europeans died in a heat wave. Today we watch as glaciers recede and ice shelves break off into the sea. In the US, we import over 60% of our oil. Energy has been the primary motivator for two wars resulting in thousands of American armed forces deaths and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in the Middle East.

Hurricane Katrina exposed our energy supply/demand vulnerability - petroleum and natural gas prices skyrocketed, causing economic upheaval after just this one storm. In 2006, the US trade deficit set a record for the fifth straight year. This is not sustainable and leaves the US vulnerable to a sell-off in US stocks and bonds that would stall the economy. Finally, fossil fuel combustion has caused mercury in fish, acid rain, and increasing incidence of asthma.

These are effects and risks that can be grouped under four categories, which I call The Four Biggies:

1) Global warming (global climate change)
2) Dependence on foreign energy
3) Trade deficit
4) Pollution from non-renewable fuels

These serious problems are all related to the combustion of fossil fuels and our dependence on the finite supply of these fuels. The sooner we address this underlying issue, the easier it will be to fix The Four Biggies.

Society gets enormous benefits from small amounts of fossil fuels. However, the market does not internalize (account for) all the costs of fossil fuel trade, masking the true cost of “cheap energy” and giving false signals on environment and energy problems. Simply put: Non-renewable sources of energy should cost more.

We need a market-based solution to set the stage for our ingenuity, drive, and marketplace to fix our energy problem and solve The Four Biggies. We need a solution similar in function and scope to our patent and antitrust laws - that is, we need to change the “rules” for the long-term benefit of all.

One very effective approach is tax shifting - that is, lowering taxes on beneficial activities (like labor) and raising them on negative activities (like burning fossil fuels), with the net effect on the average consumer being a financial wash.

To apply this concept to The Four Biggies, Congress would cut federal income taxes but raise taxes on non-renewable energy sources like oil, coal, and natural gas to replace the lost revenue. This tax shift should be phased-in over 10 years. For individuals and families, the shift should be as close to cost-neutral as possible. Those that pay no income tax or currently receive a credit - that is, those whose increased energy costs could not be offset by lowering their income taxes - would be reimbursed for their additional energy costs in other ways, such as a larger credit and/or subsidized transportation.

The very first things that should change under a tax-shifting plan to address global warming (and other problems) are the massive federal subsidies given to US companies that operate in the arenas of oil, gas, nuclear, coal, and mining.

Examples of such institutionalized subsidies include:

1) Waivers of insurance requirements for nuclear power plants and the massive annual government spending on US nuclear-power management and infrastructure via the Department of Energy’s annual budget.

2) Pricing of mining concessions on federal lands based on a US law that is more than a century old.

3) Financial incentives to oil companies to “go out and find more” at the same time these companies are raking in record profits and cutting exploration and development budgets so they can reinvest their cash in their own stocks as they anticipate further supply constriction, price increases, and even higher profits in the future.

4) Weak pollution laws for all extractive and energy industries and lax enforcement of the regulations that do exist.

Eliminating such giveaways and dirty profits - with the changes being reflected in the prices of the products produced by these industries - would be an easy first step in any effort to shift taxes from workers’ paychecks to polluters’ products.

The resulting higher prices for fossil-fuel energy will reduce our use of it and stimulate the US alternative (renewable) energy industry by “leveling the playing field.” As consumption of non-renewable energy decreases, an automatic “ratchet” mechanism would further shift taxes from income to energy to maintain the incentives and the tax base.

Alternative-energy industries have been hindered by cheap fossil-fuel and nuclear energy, both of which are heavily subsidized. Between 1985 and 2005, alternative energy in the US grew by a mere 0.5%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Phased-in intentional increases in energy prices would make many alternative-energy projects economically viable. The renewable energy industry would grow rapidly, refining their technologies and achieving economies of scale.

This would create an export boom, since other countries face similar problems and are already seeking solutions. A revitalized alternative energy industry will create technical jobs in the US and a mighty economic engine providing life-enhancing products for people all over the world.

This shift in taxes will improve our positions on trade, fossil fuel dependence, pollution, and greenhouse gases - The Four Biggies.

James Nash is a climate scientist with Greatest Planet (www.greatestplanet.org). Greatest Planet is a non-profit environmental organization specialising in carbon offset investments.

James Nash is solely responsible for the contents of this article.

Poly rainwater tanks are fast becoming the most popular choice for rainwater tanks sold in world today. The popular move towards poly rainwater tanks has been due to several contributing factors. The main reasons for the increased interest in poly rainwater tank are their resistance to corrosion, speedy fabrication times and long life span. Because of the high demand for poly water tanks, thousands of rotational molding companies have sprung up all over the world to cope with the enormous demand from the poly water tank market.

Most Poly rainwater tanks are made using the rotational molding process or the less common plastic welding process. Poly tank welding is a process in which two pieces of heat-softened poly are joined through the application of pressure. Examples of this process are hot air and extrusion welding.

Poly rainwater tanks are basically used to store drinkable water and are highly utilized in the rural and urban markets.

Poly rainwater tanks differ in size and capacity and are available in many colours, ranging from small tanks holding a one hundred litres to water tanks greater than 45,000 litres.

Rainwater tanks used for storage water are made from a wide variety of poly chemicals. Poly is the abbreviation for Polyethylene (PE), a light, chemically- resistant thermopoly, is the most commonly used poly resin. Polyethylene resins include linear high density (HDLPE), cross-linked high density (XLPE) and linear low density (LLDPE) resins.

Poly rainwater tanks have several advantages over the customary steel water tanks. Their seamless construction provides them with greater impact strength and superior resistance to corrosion. These virtually unbreakable water tanks have a longer lifespan than steel tanks, which can rust through and leak. Poly rainwater tanks are fast and easily manufactured. Poly rainwater tanks also cost less overall than steel tanks.

Poly rainwater tanks are the most conventional, economical, most widely used water tank bought these days

The advantages of installing a rainwater tank are many and apart from being able to provide for all of your non essential water usage needs you also ensure that your home becomes more environmentally friendly. The water you harvest off your roof can be used for flushing toilets, washing clothes and watering your gardens. You can reduce the demand on the mains water therefore helping to conserve our ever dwindling water supplies. Imagine the benefits to the environment if every home installed a water tank.

There are now other benefits of installing rain water tanks in your home such as generous government rebates now available to residents. Local and federal governments in some countries have introduced incentives for people to install water tanks. In Australia rebates of up to $1500 are available in you install a water tank and connect it to a toilet, washing machine and your garden taps. And did you know that rainwater is actually less salty than dam water and for that reason it is much better for your plants and your appliances.
The other benefit of owning a rainwater tank means that you will never have to worry about.

Darrell Young is a third generation master plumber running his own plumbing and rainwater tank
company since 2001. For more information on how to save water and money visit his web site at
www.rainwatertanksdirect.com.au

At USD$800 for a 170 watt solar panel many of us are scared at the cost of buying enough solar panels to power our home. Well, for a home that uses 3Kwh/day it’s around USD$14,000; however, we have a secret that can cut down that cost significantly. It happened by “accident” actually. (forgive the pun)

We were driving down Highway 401(Canada’s busiest divided highway) and noticed an accident ahead. The driver had crashed into one of those mobile signs which indicate to change lanes. The sign was completely ruined, but the panel which was ON TOP didn’t seem to be damaged. We called the company up the following Monday and the receptionist answered “Yes, the signs get hit all the time, and yes, we could probably have the cracked panels after the insurance company looked at them.”

BINGO

It turns out that this company installs 5- 65 watt solar panels on each unit. After getting the company approval we toted away 13 slightly damaged solar panels. After we got them home we tested the current on each of them. It turns out that only two of them were damaged beyond being usable. In total we picked up over 200 watts of panels for the price of the gas it cost to drive there!

We’ve now shown you a source of no-cost solar panels, but we should also know about the different kinds of solar panels because in the last 10 years there have been some amazing advances in this field.

Tried and True Monocrystalline…

For many years monocrystalline solar modules have been the mainstay of the solar market. Those iridescent blue faced panels you have been seeing on rooftops are probably of this type of panels. They have distinct rounded individual solar cells visible from all angles stacked in very uniform rows. This type is produced from a single silicon ingot or crystal. Manufacturing costs are very high because of this process making them the most expensive solar modules on the market. They are, however the most space efficient type of solar panel making them the correct choice when space is at a premium. Monocrystalline cells have a life expectancy far exceeding 25 years, probably over 50 years. The only real problem with this type of cell is it’s fragile nature making it a requirement that it be mounted in a very rigid frame.

Polycrystalline…

Polycrystalline modules are manufactured from a block of multi-crystalline silicon. They are usually square and have a varied, almost mosaic-like appearance. Only slightly less efficient than monocrystalline modules they are cheaper to manufacture and thus cost less money. You can expect the same great lifespan as monocrystalline cells too.

Thin Film…

Recently a new product was introduced into the market that could provide some much needed answers for solar power users. Amorphous silicon PV or thin film technology could make rigid solar panels obsolete if some better research is done. Thin film panels are produced by applying silicon material on glass or stainless steel, or more commonly between two pieces of flexible laminate material. Solid or rigid thin film panels are in use by flexible laminated thin film panels are more popular.

The flexible panels can be applied to any surface and sometimes used as roofing material. Most customers like the almost seamless blending of solar panels right into their roof top. Saving you the cost of regular shingles or steel roofing, thin film solar panels are a good choice. These panels are not nearly as efficient at converting light to electricity when compared to mono or polycrystalline solar panels- not nearly by half.

You would need twice the space to accommodate their installation. From a manufacturing standpoint they do absorb light more efficiently though, allowing for a thinner design and less material being used in their manufacture. The real benefit, because less material is needed, is in the simplified manufacturing process resulting in lowered costs to build. The lower price has pushed thin film panels to the lead in price per watt of output.

Andrew Oke is very interested in renewable energy.He has 16 years experience living off the grid, and has completely built his own renewable energy system. Visit his website at Living Off The Grid

But what’s with those numbers? The sun protection factor, or the SPF, ranges from a low of 2 to a high of 50 and sometimes higher. Most of us understand that the SPF has something to do with providing protection from the sun’s damaging ultraviolet rays. But beyond that, the number is shrouded in mystery.

What does SPF mean?

The SPF is a comparison of the time it takes before the skin will start to redden with and without sun protection. In addition, SPF pertains only to UVB rays, the ones that cause tanning but also sunburns.

For example, if it would take 20 minutes for an individual’s skin to burn without sun protection, then a SPF of 15 means that when applied, that person can remain in the sun 15 times longer, or up to 5 hours, without worrying about burning. The greater the SPF, the longer the protection it offers, but only up to a certain point. SPFs greater than 15 offer only small increments of additional protection. And that’s the theory behind the SPF.

In reality though, sun protection regardless of SPF becomes less effective when it’s not evenly applied, a person goes into the water and a person sweats. Both water and sweat diminish the product’s effectiveness that’s why it’s extremely important to reapply sun protection frequently.

Besides reapplying, for maximum effectiveness the first application should happen approximately 20 minutes prior to going out into the sun. Doing so allows sufficient time for the product to fully absorb into the skin. It also ensures that you’ll be protected the moment you step outside.

Which SPF is right for me?

For most people, sun protection with a sun protection factor of 15 provides adequate protection as long as it’s frequently reapplied. However, those with more sensitive skin will benefit from a higher SPF. People who are fair-skinned, have light-colored or red hair or who are traveling to certain high altitude or tropical destinations will also benefit from a higher SPF. Those with darker skin generally don’t burn as easily and need only a mild SPF. When choosing remember that a higher SPF does not offer more protection - it offers longer protection.

Other sun protection products

Self-tanning products and bronzers are safer ways to color your skin because the skin isn’t being exposed to ultraviolet radiation which over time damages the skin’s cells. These products don’t offer sun protection unless the label specifically states otherwise by listing a sun protection factor. But remember that a sun protection factor corresponds to a period of time and therefore, even if the product offers sun protection, it’s not going to last until you wash the product off in a few days.

Do not be confused between SPF, UPF, and EPF. As explained above SPF (sun protection factor) refers to sunscreens; UPF (ultraviolet protection factor) refers to sun protection swimwear, UV protective clothing and sun protection hats; EPF (eye protection factor) refers to sunglasses. Next time you purchase your sun protection product make sure you ask for SPF, UPF, or EPF certification.

J Edmond have been working in the sun protection clothing industry for several years. The main aim is to raise awareness of the sun’ UV radiation and it’s effect on human skin. Find out more about sun protection swimwear and how you can enjoy your outdoor activities.

As with any purchase, buyers need to choose their offsets carefully, particularly as the voluntary offset market is largely unregulated.

One issue to consider is the offset project type. For example, although quite popular, offsets from tree-planting projects are problematic for a number of reasons, including their lack of permanence and the fact that these projects do not address our dependence on fossil fuels. Similarly, offset projects involving the destruction of halocarbon gases such as HFC-23 have sustained numerous criticisms, including the fact that they actually result in a perverse incentive (due to the sheer volume of offsets - and profits - that they generate) for more of the ozone-depleting gas to be created. The price of offsets from these projects is also so low (due to the very high global warming potential of the gas) that they tend to flood the market and squeeze out more sustainable offset projects, like solar and wind.

Another important issue to consider when purchasing offsets is ‘additionality’. An offset project is considered additional if it isn’t business as usual. Typically this means that the project wouldn’t have happened without the extra funding from the sale of offsets. Additionality is extremely important, as the entire concept of offsetting - i.e. purchasing greenhouse gas reduction credits from a project elsewhere to neutralize one’s own emissions - is based on the premise that those reductions wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Only by buying offsets that have met additionality criteria can you be assured that your purchase is resulting in a net benefit for the climate.

Other criteria of high quality carbon offsets include: validation and verification of the project by reputable third-parties; steps by the project developer to ensure that each offset is only sold once (e.g. by listing the offsets on a public registry); and systems in place to control ‘leakage’, where the creation of a GHG reduction in one region causes an unintended increase in GHG emissions somewhere else (for example, protecting a forest in one location could simply shift logging to a forested area in a new location).

A number of organizations have published comparisons of offset vendors; these can be found in the Resources section below. For example, Clean Air Cool Planet has published a Consumer’s Guide to Carbon Offsets for Carbon Neutrality that lists some some questions that potential buyers can ask of offset vendors:

1) Do your offsets result from specific projects?
2) Do you use an objective standard to ensure the additionality and quality of the offsets you sell?
3) How do you demonstrate that the projects in your portfolio would not have happened without the greenhouse gas offset market?
4) ave your offsets been validated against a third-party standard by a credible source?
5) Do you sell offsets that will actually accrue in the future? If so, how long into the future, and can you explain why you need to ‘forward sell’ the offsets?
6) Can you demonstrate that your offsets are not sold to multiple buyers?
7) What are you doing to educate your buyers about climate change and the need for climate change policy?

Because it can be difficult for offset buyers to get clear answers to each of the above questions, a good way to ensure that your offset purchase is making a positive contribution to the climate is to purchase offsets that meet recognized standards. Just as consumers can feel confident when purchasing food products that meet strict third-party standards for organic agriculture, standards for carbon offsets provide assurance that certain criteria are met when the offset is developed and sold.

A number of standards exist for carbon offsets, including the VCS, Green-e, and The Gold Standard. More standards are being announced regularly, and WWF recently published a comparison of the most common offset standards. Each of these standards differs in key ways, with some being more rigorous than others.

The Gold Standard is widely considered to be the highest standard in the world for carbon offsets. It ensures that key environmental criteria have been met by offset projects that carry its label. Significantly, only offsets from energy efficiency and renewable energy projects qualify for the Gold Standard, as these projects encourage a shift away from fossil fuel use and carry inherently low environmental risks. Tree planting projects are explicitly excluded by The Gold Standard.

First, Gold Standard projects must meet very high additionality criteria to ensure that they contribute to the adoption of additional sustainable energy projects, rather than simply funding existing projects. The Gold Standard also includes social and environmental indicators to ensure the offset project contributes to sustainable development goals in the country where the project is based. Finally, all Gold Standard projects have been independently verified by a third party to ensure integrity.

Currently, The Gold Standard is restricted to offset projects in countries that don’t have emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol, which are primarily developing countries. Supporting offset projects that meet The Gold Standard therefore helps these countries ‘leapfrog’ us technologically so they don’t go down the same fossil fuel path as developed countries - which would be disastrous for the climate.

The Gold Standard is supported by over fifty non-governmental organizations worldwide, including WWF International, and Greenpeace International.

James Nash is a climate scientist with Greatest Planet (www.greatestplanet.org). Greatest Planet is a non-profit environmental organization specialising in carbon offset investments.

James Nash is solely responsible for the contents of this article.

You think you understand renewable energy credits. You’re sure you understand Carbon Offsets. You are fuzzy on the details about how they differ and when the purchase of one or the other might be appropriate. Never fear! This article explains the key differences, and similarities, between the two.

The first difference is the way that offsets and Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) are measured. Carbon offsets are measured in metric tons of C02 or C02 Equivalent. Renewable Energy Credits are measured in kilowatt hours, which are a standard electricity measurement metric. A kilowatt hour is the amount of work that can be performed by one kilowatt of energy in one hour.

Picture a lonely, dim lightbulb hanging from the ceiling that turns on for one hour each day by which you feverishly darn socks in a carbon constrained world; that’s a watt, and for the privilege of its use, you’ll be charged for 1/1000 kwh of electricity each day. These days, you probably use a several kwh per day.

The second difference between carbon offsets and renewable energy credits is that renewable energy credits only come from renewable energy projects (solar, wind geothermal, biofuels, etc.) while carbon offsets can come from all different kinds of projects, including renewable energy generation, that reduce the level of greenhouse gases that are entering the atmosphere.

To put it another way, RECs are primarily concerned with promoting the generation of clean energy, while carbon offsets are primarily concerned with preventing the emissions that enter the atmosphere.

They are both systems that have developed to deal with global warming systematically, but they have different approaches. RECs are forward looking, focused on building a clean energy economy and providing an extra incentive for the creation of renewable energy, while carbon offsets are oriented in the present, dealing with preventing greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere right now.

Because of these different measurement systems and the different foci of the two programs, RECs and carbon offsets have different precision rates when it comes to carbon. Carbon offsets are all about exactitude, and many of the discussions about the efficacy of offsets center around the degree of certainty a buyer has that the exact amount of carbon s/he has paid for is actually being prevented or captured. RECs, on the other hand, are measured in kilowatt hours, and the carbon content of that ’saved’ kwh differs depending on the location of the project and the quality of the local electricity.

The dirtier the local electricity, the more carbon an REC ’saves.’ Different utilities around the country use different mixes of energy sources, from coal to natural gas to renewables, to create electricity. These sources vary widely in their carbon content. To make matters even more confusing, a utility might even change the mix it uses depending on the time of day- when peak load sets in they might have to rely on dirtier power sources than they would otherwise.

So, it’s impossible to say exactly how much carbon a clean kwh of renewable energy ‘offsets.’ The closest we can get is to use the ‘emissions factor’ for energy from the local utility, which is the average emissions for the mix of sources that the utility uses to create power, and multiply it by the number of kilowatt hours to produce an estimate of the carbon saved per kilowatt. But it will always be an estimate.

This is not to say that RECs are no good. They are an extremely effective way to promote clean energy because they give the providers and extra incentive to keep creating clean energy and we need all the incentives we can get to move toward a clean energy economy. RECs just aren’t the most accurate way to offset carbon. I highly recommend using RECs to offset electricity use, because your electric bills will have a record of the exact number of kwh you used, and you can buy RECs to account for all the dirty emissions your plugged-in Macbook caused. Then, you can buy carbon offsets to cover all your driving and flying.

‘But what about renewable carbon offsets?’, you say. ‘Those seem like the best of both worlds!’ I’m getting there. Those are good to, and if you really value the promotion of clean energy despite some of the accuracy issues, you can buy renewable energy offsets. Many times offsets will actually come from the exact same projects as the RECs, but the nice thing about buying the offset version instead of buying RECs and doing the calculations yourself is that someone else, hopefully a third party verifier, is determining how much carbon each kwh of clean energy replaced. So you don’t have to! Rest easy, and lay off the carbon guilt.

James Nash is a climate scientist with Greatest Planet (www.greatestplanet.org). Greatest Planet is a non-profit environmental organization specialising in carbon offset investments.

James Nash is solely responsible for the contents of this article.