Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts

5 Dec 2007

Environment: Mother Nature feels the pains of divorce

Mother Nature feels the pains of divorce

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer | Posted Tue Dec 4, 2007 3:48pm PST


WASHINGTON - Divorce can be bad for the environment. In countries around the world divorce rates have been rising, and each time a family dissolves the result is two new households.

"A married household actually uses resources more efficiently than a divorced household," said Jianguo Liu, an ecologist at Michigan State University whose analysis of the environmental impact of divorce appears in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

More households means more use of land, water and energy, three critical resources, Liu explained in a telephone interview.

Households with fewer people are simply not as efficient as those with more people sharing, he explained. A household uses the same amount of heat or air conditioning whether there are two or four people living there. A refrigerator used the same power whether there is one person home or several. Two people living apart run two dishwashers, instead of just one.

Liu, who researches the relationship of ecology with social sciences, said people seem surprised by his findings at first, and then consider it simple. "A lot of things become simple after the research is done," he said.

Some extra energy or water use may not sound like a big deal, but it adds up.

The United States, for example, had 16.5 million households headed by a divorced person in 2005 and just over 60 million households headed by a married person.

Per person, divorced households spent more per person per month for electricity compared with a married household, as multiple people can be watching the same television, listening to the same radio, cooking on the same stove and or eating under the same lights.

That means some $6.9 billion in extra utility costs per year, Liu calculated, plus an added $3.6 billion for water, in addition to other costs such as land use.

And it isn't just the United States.

Liu looked at 11 other countries such as Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Greece, Mexico and South Africa between 1998 and 2002.

In the 11, if divorced households had combined to have the same average household size as married households, there could have been a million fewer households using energy and water in these countries.

"People have been talking about how to protect the environment and combat climate change, but divorce is an overlooked factor that needs to be considered," Liu said.

Liu stressed that he isn't condemning divorce: "Some people really need to get divorces." But, he added, "one way to be more environmentally friendly is to live with other people and that will reduce the impact."

Don't get smug, though, married folks — savings also apply to people living together and Shaker communities or even hippie communes would have been even more efficient.

So, what prompts someone to figure out the environmental impact of divorce?

Liu was studying the ecology of areas with declining population and noticed that even where the total number of people was less, the number of households was increasing. He wondered why.

There turned out to be several reasons: divorce, demographic shifts such as people remaining single longer and the demise of multigenerational households.

"I was surprised because the divorce rate actually has been up and down for many years in some of the countries ... but we found the proportion of divorced households has increased rapidly across the globe," he said.

So he set out to measure the difference, such as in terms of energy and water, land use and construction materials and is now reporting the results for divorce.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.

___

On the Net:

PNAS: http://www.pnas.org

28 Nov 2007

Environment: Oh Christmas tree, oh green Christmas tree?

Nothing says "Christmas" like the smell of pine in your living room on a winter morning! But is that smell really "green" or is it bad for the planet? Is it more environmentally responsible to buy a fake tree and use it year after year? What about keeping a live tree for Christmas? Let's look at the options one by one.

tree farm photo on wikipedia in public domain from United States Department of Agriculture

If you want a tree for the holiday, the experts at Grist and TreeHugger say it's actually better to buy a cut real Christmas tree than an artificial tree.

Why? In a word, plastics. Fake trees are made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Producing this type of plastic creates a lot of pollution, and PVC is difficult to recycle.

Plus, lead has been found in PVC. According to a report (PDF) in the Journal of Environmental Health, lead levels are higher in older artificial trees. You've probably heard about lead in children's toys, so just imagine the kiddos hanging around lead-tainted branches of your fake Christmas tree. Not a merry scene.

Farmed Christmas trees are ultimately a renewable resource. Growing trees absorb carbon dioxide, and after the holidays, the trees can be recycled into mulch. Check Earth 911 to see where to take your dead tree after the 25th.

What about a live tree? This is often promoted as the ultimate eco-friendly holiday option. Well, it's not that simple. First, you have to live in the right climate to plant a tree after Christmas. If the ground is frozen outside, you can't do it.

Then, you can only keep a live tree indoors for a few days, either 4 to 10, depending on the type of tree. You can't have this tree up after Thanksgiving and around till New Years, or you'll kill it.

Some types of live trees can be kept outside in containers for a year or two. Others grow fast and must be planted in the ground sooner. Either way, this isn't a long-term solution to your Christmas decorations -- what do you do the following year? Pretty soon, the tree won't fit in the house.

Also, you must carefully consider how much space you have in your yard to plant trees. Remember, these trees may grow up to 60-feet tall.

So, the most practical solution for earth-friendly folks who celebrate Christmas is to look for a locally grown tree. Ask if the farm uses integrated pest management instead of tons of chemicals.

If you can, find a cut-your-own Christmas tree farm. It's good family fun too.

Source: Yahoo!Green By Trystan L. Bass

27 Nov 2007

Football field-sized kite powers latest heavy freight ship


A kite the size of a football field will provide most of the power for a German heavy freight ship set to launch in December.
The Beluga shipping company that owns the 460-foot Beluga said it expects the kites to decrease fuel consumption by up to 50% in optimal cases as well as a cutback of the emission of greenhouse gases on sea by 10 to 20%. Interestingly, the ship will be hauling windmills from Esbjerg, Denmark to Houston, Texas.
The company that makes the kite for the German transport, SkySails, has made kites for large yachts but is targeting commercial ships with new, larger kites. And it has the ambitious goal of equipping 1,500 ships with kites by 2015.
The SkySails system consists of a towing kite with rope, a launch and recovery system and a control system for the whole operation. The control system acts like the autopitot systems on an aircraft, the company says. Autopilot software sends and receives data about the sail etc to make sure the sail is set at its optimal position.
The company also says it provides an optional weather routing system so that ships can sail into optimal wind conditions.The kites typically fly at about 1,000 feet above sea level, thereby tapping winds that can be almost 50% stronger than at the surface.
Skysail isn't the only company pioneering kite technology. A US company, KiteShip, in Martinez, Calif., has been building ultra-large kites mostly for the private yachting sector, with plans to expand into cargo and cruise vessels.
Not everyone is sold on the kites however. In an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution today, John Barnes, editor of Marine Engineers Review, a marine engineering magazine in London, said the jury's still out on kite propulsion systems. "This could work, but there is an extra cost entailed, and it won't make much sense if the price of fuel falls back," he said. "It seems to be a practical approach, but we still need to see what the benefits and penalties will be."One hurdle is the costs associated with the hiring of crews to actually tend the kites. Another: drawback: The system obviously won't work in a head wind, the article stated.

Source: networkworld.com Submitted by Layer 8 on Sun, 11/25/2007 - 11:19pm.

21 Nov 2007

Environment: LED Lights will replace bulbs in Taiwan

Taiwan vai substituir, a partir de 2012, todas as lâmpadas de filamento incandescente por diodos emissores de luz (LED), a fim de poupar energia, anunciou hoje em Taipe um responsável do Ministério da Economia.
O Governo vai proibir a produção de lâmpadas incandescentes em 2010 e erradicá-las-á a partir de 2012, disse Yeh Huey-ching, do Ministério da Economia.
A ilha gastou 26 mil milhões de quilovátios/hora na iluminação pública em 2006 e espera uma poupança de 41 por cento com a introdução das lâmpadas LED.
Os organismos oficiais taiwaneses já começaram a substituição das lâmpadas e, a partir de 2009, será proibido uso de incandescentes nos estabelecimentos públicos.
Taiwan estuda também uma revisão do seu sistema de transportes públicos e dos impostos sobre veículos para fomentar a poupança de energia.
Source: Diario Digital