A blog about all things green, from conservation to Capitol Hill

Pat Canova / Getty Images

Is it just me, or is the past getting past faster than ever before? It wasn't that long ago—a little more than a year and a half—that President Obama stood at Andrews Air Force Base and outlined an ambitious energy deal. Greens would get the carbon cap-and-trade legislation they had been working for since the start of his time in office, but conservatives and those in oil-producing states would win a significant expansion of offshore drilling, opening up previously closed areas like the eastern Gulf of Mexico, parts of the Atlantic coast and the northern shore of Alaska. As I wrote at the time, the speech was "prime Obama, splitting the differences on a problem that has divided the U.S. right down the middle."

The President himself said then:

We need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure-all and those who claim it has no place. This issue is just too important to allow our progress to languish while we fight the same old battles over and over again.

A little thing called the Deepwater Horizon oil spill ensured that plan would never become a reality, leaving the White House to put the brakes on more offshore drilling—even as cap-and-trade legislation died in the Senate. The oil spill put the lie to the argument that drilling could be expanded—especially into sensitive and valuable waters—without much risk, but it also ensured that neither side would be interested in compromising.

Now, with the Gulf oil spill overshadowed by countless other crises—if not forgotten by those who lived through it—the White House on November 8 announced a new plan to expand offshore drilling. It's less ambitious this time around, but it still expands the waters where oil companies will be allowed to lease territory and drill, expanding in Alaskan coast and the Gulf of Mexico. But it keeps the Atlantic coastal waters off-limits to drilling, as well as the eastern Gulf, while going slow in the Alaskan Arctic.

Read More…

        

Did Fracking Help Cause Oklahoma Earthquakes?

Bloomberg / Getty Images

The good people of Oklahoma were rattled on Nov. 5 when the state was hit by its largest earthquake on record, a 5.6-magnitude temblor that struck 44 miles (71 km) east of Oklahoma City. (The previous biggest quake was a 5.5-magnitude tremor that hit in 1952.) Fortunately, no one was hurt, although 14 homes were damaged, and the state was shaken by a number of moderate aftershocks.

Oklahoma isn't California — this is a state that is usually pretty seismically stable, one with about 50 small quakes a year until 2009. But the number of quakes spiked in 2009, and last year 1,047 tremors shook Oklahoma. All of which begs the question: Has something changed to make the Sooner State unstable? Perhaps something like hydraulic fracturing?

Also called fracking, the practice — producing small fractures in the earth miles beneath the surface with explosives in order to tap trapped oil and gas deposits — is common in Oklahoma, a center of the fossil fuel extraction industry. It's not hard to wonder whether injecting millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals deep underground in order to break up rock might worsen existing faults or even trigger a tremor.

Read More…

        

Arctic Permafrost: Climate Wild Card

A hill in Canada's Northwest Territories slumps from melting permafrost. (Rick Bowmer / AP)

On the basics, the science of climate change is pretty straightforward. Carbon dioxide released into the air—whether through the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation or other natural causes—adds to the greenhouse effect, which traps more solar energy in the atmosphere and warms the planet. But just how this will happen—how fast and exactly how the planet and the climate will respond to more carbon and more warming—gets very complicated very quickly. There are wild cards in the climate system, some of which—if they flip the wrong way—could vastly accelerate global warming well beyond anything most climate models predict.

One of those wild cards is the 1,672 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent trapped in the form of methane in the Arctic permafrost, the soils kept frozen by the far North's extreme temperatures. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas—it has 20 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide—and the total amount of carbon equivalent in the Arctic permafrost is 250 times greater than annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. As the Arctic warms—which it's doing rather rapidly—there's a risk that the permafrost could become less than permanent, releasing some of that trapped methane into the air, which would then accelerate warming, leading to more Arctic melt, more methane emissions...so on and so on. Climate scientists call this a "feedback loop"—and if it happens soon, you could just call us screwed.

Read More…

        

A Ghanaian recycler sifts through e-waste (Photo: EMPA)

There's nothing that thrills tech-lovers more than the latest Shiny New Thing. In the first three quarters of 2011 alone, 55 million iPhones were sold—and that was before the release of the 4s this month. That's a lot of Shiny New Things.

The problem is, Shiny New Things quickly become Familiar Old Things, and nothing seems so discardable as a poky device that no longer runs the latest apps or includes the coolest features. In the U.S. alone, hundreds of millions of old phones, computers and other hardware are junked each year — and that's a real problem. It's hardly news by now that electronic devices contain all manner of toxic metals including lead, cadmium and mercury. Nor is it a surprise that mountains of this high-tech junk wind up in developing countries, where they are scrounged for raw materials for resale. International accords forbid unregulated shipments of First World e-waste to Third World destinations, but the rules are routinely flouted and a thriving gray market has sprouted up, allowing the junk to travel freely around the globe.

Now, a study in Ghana — ground zero in the e-waste mess — reveals how toxic the problem can be. Soil, air and other environmental tests conducted by Ghanaian researcher Atiemo Sampson at a school, church, soccer field and produce market near an open-air e-waste scavenging site found that levels of eight metals — iron, magnesium, copper, zinc, cadmium, chromium, nickel and lead — were up to 50 times higher than in uncontaminated areas. Some of the toxins seep through the soil; more still pour into the air when waste is burned.

"Until now, Ghana has not regulated the importation of e-waste," Sampson said in a recent presentation to a U.N.-run multi-disciplinary group called Stop the E-Waste Problem (StEP). "Rules are only now being incorporated into our national legal framework."

Ghana is not only an example of how severe the e-waste pile-up is becoming everywhere in the developing world — all the moreso as the commercial arms race among electronic giants escalates, with new products being introduced all the time — but how tricky it can be to set things right. The root of the problem, as with so many things, is poverty.

Electronics are scavenged not because locals like wading hip-deep in e-waste, but because there's gold to be found in the junk — literally. A mountain of 100,000 cell phones contains an estimated $130,000 worth of scrap gold. That's along with $100,000 worth of copper and $27,000 worth of silver — a cool quarter of a million dollars in all. Impoverished communities rely on the rubbish as an income source, and governments that can't provide for them any other way thus wink at e-waste importation. In 2009, Ghana imported 215,000 tons of electronics, 70% of which was used and destined for the trash heap.

"The sheer number of people engaged in informal recycling . . . makes it increasingly unthinkable politically to eject them," Sampson said. "Any solution must recognize their role and focus on improving health, safety and environmental standards."

StEP agrees, and recommends both formalizing and regulating how recycling is done, so that people in need of the work can continue to do it, but in a way that's safe for themselves and their surroundings. That's easier to say than to do, of course. Of all of the ways an economically struggling country can spend its limited money — health care, schooling, feeding its people — building an e-waste recycling plant does not rank terribly high. Umicore, a Belgium-based materials-processing company, has constructed one such model facility near Antwerp, but that hardly meets the needs of poor Ghanaians.

A cleaner solution — though one that eliminates the income stream that comes from ad hoc recycling — is for electronics companies to design their products with toxic metals in mind, both limiting the quantity they use and making making it easier and safer to extract them. StEP applauds Philips electronics for being an early leader in such "life cycle thinking." Consumers also need to get smarter. Discarding rechargeable batteries when they no longer work contributes cobalt, nickel and other metals to the waste stream. Retailers and other collection centers often have drop boxes for safe recycling.

The electronics revolution is not going to be slowed — much less stopped or reversed. And at almost all levels — commercial, social, creative, political — that's a very good thing. It's only the environmental piece that, as so often happens, is getting neglected. Staying wired and staying green is not easy — but for the sake of public health, it's essential.

        

Why the Future of Skincare May Be Algae

Stephen Sharnoff / Getty Images

[Update: The original title of the post said that the algae used in the Algenist cosmetics line was genetically engineered. That's not the case—the compounds come from existing microalgae that Solazyme has been able to identify and grow. We've fixed the headline—my apologies.]

Trying to make a biofuel startup work is tough. On one hand, you're fighting for a share of one of the biggest markets on the planet—last year the global oil and gas market was an astounding $2.6 trillion. But fuels are a commodity—customers really don't care whether they get their gasoline from Exxon or Shell or BP, because the product is essentially the same. That means the margin on fuel is extremely low, which then means you have to produce in large-scale to make any meaningful profit. But that in turn means a lot of capital spending—just building a pilot plant to produce biofuels can easily cost more than $100 million. At the same time, experimental second-generation biofuels—made from cellulose or algae—are still more expensive to produce than conventional oil, which puts them at a disadvantage as they battle for a little market share against the biggest companies in the world.

All of which is to explain how Jonathan Wolfson—the CEO of Solazyme, a San Francisco-based biofuel startup—came to sell high-end cosmetics. Solazyme makes biofuel from the oil produced by microalgae that has been engineered by the company. Algae has become a popular method to make second-generation biofuels—algae can be grown in fermentation tanks, as Solazyme does it, in open pond systems or photo bioreactors that can be placed on non-agricultural land, all of which means that algal fuel doesn't directly compete with food supplies the way that corn or sugarcane ethanol might.

Solazyme has had some success with its fuels business—the company had a strong IPO in May, and it has already delivered hundreds of thousands of gallons of its fuel to the U.S. Navy. But—for the reasons outlined above—it's going to take a while to be able to sustainably produce algal biofuel at scale, and in the meantime, there are bills to be paid. "You have to focus on what you can really do," Wolfson told me on a visit this week to New York. "You have to think about the scope of what's needed."

Read More…

        

Why Coke Is Going White for Polar Bears

Digital Vision / Getty Images

The 125-year-old Coca-Cola Company doesn't like to mess with its brand image. That's in part because it's so valuable—according to Interbrand Coke has the best brand in the world—but also because previous efforts to tweak its image haven't always worked out so well, and sometimes lead to things like this.

So perhaps it's a measure of the company's dedication to the environment that Coca-Cola has decided to change the color of its iconic cans for the holiday season—white, to draw attention to the plight of the polar bear. Coke and the environmental group World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have joined together to promote the Arctic Home project, which will involve turning 1.4 billion Coke cans white, emblazoned with the image of a mother polar bear and her cubs pawing through the Arctic. There will also be white bottle caps on other Coke branded drinks, all running from the beginning of November to February. "In 125 years we've never changed the color of the Coke can," says Katie Bayne, president and GM of Coca-Cola Sparking Beverages. "We really see this as a bold gesture."

Read More…

        

Questioning Industrial Food

The Image Bank / Getty Images

This Friday environmental and public health groups will hold the first National Conference to End Factory Farming in Arlington, Virginia—a gathering which is pretty self-explanatory. Gene Baur heads the Farm Sanctuary, a nonprofit dedicated to fighting animal abuse on farms, sent in a piece outlining the goals of the conference, which I'll excerpt below:

Read More…

        

Zebras roam freely in Nairobi National Park, located just outside of the country's capital, in Nairobi, Kenya. (Photo: Peter Macdiarmid / Getty Images)


Maybe it's just the fact that the official day has been set for October 31—Halloween—but there's a distinct whiff of panic and fear around the expected birth of the 7 billionth person on the planet. Here's Roger Martin, chair of the NGO Population Matters, writing in the Guardian recently:

The 7 Billion Day is a sobering reminder of our planet's predicament. We are increasing by 10,000 an hour. The median UN forecast is 9.3 billion by 2050, but the range varies by 2.5 billion – the total world population in 1950 – depending on how we work it out.

Every additional person needs food, water and energy, and produces more waste and pollution, so ratchets up our total impact on the planet, and ratchets down everyone else's share – the rich far more than the poor. By definition, total impact and consumption are worked out by measuring the average per person multiplied by the number of people. Thus all environmental (and many economic and social) problems are easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible with ever more.

Until the 7 billion threshold was approached recently, population growth had largely disappeared as a major international issue—a far cry from the 1970s, when Malthusian thought was back in fashion and countries like India and China were taking brutally coercive steps to curb population growth. That's partially a reaction to those dark days—right-thinking environmentalists didn't want to be associated with unjust policies, and so population became the green issue that dare not speak its name. But I also think that when the 6 billionth person rolled around—just 12 years ago—the world was in a very different and much brighter place. It's a lot easier to feel sunny about the idea of the planet growing more crowded when the global economy is humming, there are few major conflicts ongoing and you can bring a water bottle through airport security.

Things, of course, are a little darker in 2011, so suddenly more people just seem like more mouths to feed, more competitors at the marketplace, more straws in the milkshake. You can see it in the way that immigration has once again become a hot-button political issue in the U.S., or the rise of population-induced apocalyptic fears. Are we going to breed ourselves out of existence? Is there room on the planet to support 7 billion plus people?

Read More…

        

Is Ecocide a Crime?

Oxford Scientific / Getty Images

From TIME contributor Joe Jackson:

As oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's Deepwater Horizon rig in May 2010, and then CEO Tony Hayward made his infamous statement that he wanted his life back, he likely had little fear of it being taken in a court of law.

But that reality could be changing as a movement to make business executives and political leaders legally accountable for environmental destruction gains global momentum. Campaigners are calling for the introduction of a new internationalized law of ecocide - the mass destruction of ecosystems – that would be on a par with genocide and similar crimes against humanity.

In late September the Hamilton Group – an NGO promoting sustainable development - staged a mock trial at the U.K.'s Supreme Court. The day-long proceedings saw two fictional oil company execs - played by actors – face three counts of ecocide. Their multinationals stood accused of killing migratory birds and degrading the environment in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and in the tar sands in Canada, with the pair facing a volunteer jury, one supposedly screened to be free of activists.

“We took it very seriously,” says jury foreman Huw Spanner, a 51-year-old writer and editor. “It seemed a mixed group – there were some green skeptics,” he adds of the jury.

Their unanimous convictions on two of the three charges were perhaps a meaningless victory for Greens given that the proceedings – despite being based on real events and featuring genuine barristers, expert witnesses and a judge - were entirely devoid of legal status.

Read More…

        

How to Make Crops Flood-Proof

Paula Bronstein / Getty Images News

Water is a fact of life in Thailand and its capital of Bangkok, where one of the easiest ways to get around the traffic-clogged megacity is on water taxis. This is a country, after all, that celebrates a water festival—involving some serious Super Soakers—every year. But weeks of rains have caused the worst floods Thailand has experienced in more than five decades. Those floods have killed more than 340 people and have devastated part Thailand's northern reaches, and Bangkok itself is now under threat. It's gotten so bad that evacuees have been forced to take shelter in Bangkok's international airport, and water now covers more than a third of the entire country.

Thai leaders are focused on protecting Bangkok—major damage there could triple or quadruple the economic damages from the floods, which have already reached more than $3.2 billion. But the rains have already devastated Thailand's rice crop—more than 12% of the country's rice harvest has been damaged by the floods. That will have a serious impact on the price of rice worldwide because Thailand accounts for nearly a third of the global rice trade. Nor does it help that other major rice producers in Southeast Asia—like the Philippines and Cambodia—have also lost crops because of the rain.

More from TIME: Texas Burns as the Rest of the Country Drowns

In a warmer world, disasters like this one are likely to become more common and more devastating. That's one more reason why global warming could severely damage harvests—a scary thought in a world that's already passing 7 billion people. We'll need to reduce carbon emissions to mitigate climate change as much as possible, but we'll also need to adapt to the reality of a warmer, wetter world.

That's why a new study published in the October 23 Nature is so important. Researchers at the University of Nottingham and the University of California-Riverside identified the molecular mechanism that plants use to sense low oxygen levels. That might sound academic, but the discovery is potentially the first step to developing crops that are resistant to floods—a vital means of adapting to climate change.

Photos from TIME: Flooding in Thailand

Michael Holdsworth, a professor of crop science at Nottingham and a lead author on the Nature study, said in a statement:

The mechanism controls key regulatory proteins called transcription factors that can turn other genes on and off. It is the unusual structure of these proteins that destines them for destruction under normal oxygen levels, but when oxygen levels decline, they become stable. Their stability results in changes in gene expression and metabolism that enhance survival in the low oxygen conditions brought on by flooding. When the plants return to normal oxygen levels, the proteins are again degraded, providing a feedback control mechanism.

More from TIME: Hurricane Irene Bears Down on the U.S.

Holdsworth and his colleagues believe that researchers will eventually be able to manipulate the protein turnover mechanism in crops like rice, corn and wheat—producing plants that can weather periods of prolonged flooding. That kind of genetic manipulation may make some organic food advocates uncomfortable to say the least, but in a hot and wet world, we'll need to produce crops that can fit the climate.

Bryan Walsh is a senior writer at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @bryanrwalsh. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME