Greetings From Almost-Carbon-Neutral Iceland

I just left Iceland after a three-day visit. It is an amazing country with wild natural beauty and very special natural resources.

The island grows 2cm each year due to being on the continental rift between North America and Europe. In fact, while visiting, we got to walk off the edge of North America and through the rift in the middle. (We didn't get to walk all the way to Europe as it's over 7 miles away, and the tour didn't have time for that.)

This unique topography also gives it very unique natural resources. Since it is very geologically active, they have vast amounts of geothermal power available. All electricity is geothermally produced, and all hot water comes straight out of the ground. In fact, it usually needs to be cooled off first before it can be used.

I would like to know, however, if Icelanders ever get used to the smell of their geothermal hot water. Let's just say I loved knowing my hot showers were carbon-free, but I wasn't a huge fan of the smell I had to endure.

While we were there, we certainly incurred emissions from the food we ate (coffee, anyone?), the tour buses we explored in (mostly Sprinter-type vans, in fact), and obviously our flight to get there, but it was really nice knowing that all the hot water and electricity and ~80% of the building heat were all from naturally occurring geothermal sources.

In February 2008, Iceland was one of the first countries in the world to commit to achieving carbon neutrality. However, according to this Reuters article from November 24, 2009, Iceland has dropped its plans due to its current economic meltdown. I can't find other sources to corroborate the Reuters story right away. Wikipedia has not been changed. I will continue to try to figure out what's really going on. Regardless of where their goal stands, I commend them for being among the first (and the few) to make such goals at all, and wish them the best in their economic recovery.

Public art set to emit GHGs unnecessarily in February

A set of internet-controlled searchlights will illuminate the sky over Vancouver's West End and English Bay during the Olympics this February. 20 of them. Each 10,000 watts bright.

Twenty. Ten. Thousand. Watt. Lights.

Sounds crazy, right? Well, as is becoming practice here on Carbontastic, let's do a little math.

20 lights x 10 kW each x 8 hours per day (estimating 3ish til 11ish) x 25 days = 40,000 kWh of electricity

That's just 11% of an average home's electricity use in a year. Correction: That's a little less than the electricity use by four homes over one year in BC. (And based on BC Hydro's VERY low electrical grid emissions factor of 20 g CO2e/kWh, the display represents 800 kg of CO2e.) So while my first reaction was, "Seriously? How wasteful," I'm actually coming around to think this could be a good--or at least not so bad--thing, because it's easily compensated for by asking folks to conserve a little more electricity during the games...

However, what if this display were going up in Portland? Try more than 16 tonnes of CO2e.

To his credit, artist Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, did say they this:

When I saw English Bay I knew it would be the perfect spot to create our largest canopy of light to date and for the first time we are also able to use renewable energy.

(Note on correction: My original figure of 11% was from the US EPA Equivalencies Calculator, based on the 800 kg CO2e, which produced a very low result because the EPA calculator is based on the US's higher emissions factors. Mea culpa. Thanks to Joe for catching my funky math.)

Twitter Carbon Footprint...Tweetprint?

As an active Twitterer, this calculation of the GHG emissions of Twitter's activities is half hilarious and half sad.

Based on their averages, I did my own math and came to 13 grams of CO2e per tweet, which puts the total Tweetprint (TM) (kidding) of my own Twitter habit at well over 35 kg. That represents about 9 months of serious use.

Let's put that in perspective.

According to the US EPA GHG Equivalencies Calculator, 35 kg is approximately the CO2e emissions from 4 gallons of gasoline consumed or 1.5 propane cylinders used for home barbeques, or the carbon sequestered by 0.9 tree seedlings grown for 10 years.

So, putting the debate about forestry offsets aside for a moment, could a heavy-ish Twitter user like me just plant a tree or two per year, assuming they'll survive for at least 10 years, and call it a Tweet?

Perhaps we should instead lobby Twitter to move their servers to Iceland to reduce their emissions thanks to natural cooling and a carbon-free electricity grid...

Norway Develops Osmotic Electricity

Now, I don't claim to understand osmotic electricity. I'll leave that to Reuters (via BoingBoing):

The plant is driven by osmosis that naturally draws fresh water across a membrane and toward the seawater side. This creates higher pressure on the sea water side, driving a turbine and producing electricity.

Sounds good, right? Streams and rivers flow into oceans all over the world. All the time. Regardless of the weather, unlike wind and solar.

I love this story for its obvious GHG-reducing potential, but I really love it for Norway's hype-free approach. Maggie at BoingBoing agrees:

I have to give a shoutout to the Norwegians for not claiming that their osmosis-based generator will magically solve the world's energy problems--instead describing it as part of a mix of different technologies that, together, could make a difference.

Those Norwegians...clever and humble!

To be clear, they speculate that the "difference" osmotic power could make globally constitutes about half of the EU's demand. That's certainly impressive, however, it's obviously that conservation efforts still need to come first.

So I'm unplugging my computer now.

Humble Oil Ad, 1962

Grist today published this Humble Oil ad from 1962.

Yes, it says what you think it says...

Each day Humble supplies enough energy to melt 7 million tons of glacier!

Indeed. If only they knew back then the impact that power and energy would have a couple generations down the line...

Oh, and if you're thinking, "Who the heck is Humble Oil anyway?" Humble was partially owned by Standard Oil of New Jersey, held the Esso ("S-O" for Standard Oil) and Enco ("ENergy COmpany") brands, and finally combined with Standard Oil of New Jersey to become Exxon on January 1, 1973.

Funny story about the merger and the renaming...

At first, consideration was given to simply rebranding all stations as "Enco" but that was shelved when it was learned that "Enco" is a Japanese abbreviation of "engine failure." (エンジン故障, enjinkoshō^?)

 Oh Wikipedia, how I love thee.

Carbon Roundup Special Edition: Countdown to Copenhagen

Copenhagen climate change summit: The issues (guardian.co.uk)

A thoughtful, straightforward intro to the less-than-straightforward issues on the table in Copenhagen in under a month.

What are the prospects for a Copenhagen deal?
Negotiations held last week in Barcelona were grim: all now acknowledge that no legal deal is possible in Copenhagen. A miracle is needed for a triumph. President Barack Obama is the one who could deliver it, but it is very unlikely.

Obama will go to Copenhagen - if he can seal a deal (climateprogress.org)

How likely is that Obama miracle?

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday he would travel to Copenhagen next month if a climate summit is on the verge of a framework deal and his presence there will make a difference in clinching it.

Religious leaders join to battle climate change (telegraph.co.uk)

Well if anyone can deliver a miracle...

At a meeting hosting by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, leaders from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Baha'i, Jain and Zoroastrian faiths called on the UK and G20 governments to fight for an ambitious deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions at UN-led talks in Copenhagen in December.

Best Carbon Tweet Ever

This could be a whole new Twitter meme...not to mention a whole new type of carbon reduction strategy!

less carbon, more _________.

What cute/happy thing would you like to see more of alongside less carbon?

Eye of the Wind

Grouse Mountain is Vancouver's mountain, standing by the city like a kind neighbour. And it just got even kinder.

J and I got married on Grouse over 5 years ago, so it holds a special place for us.

When we went up this past July to visit, we saw nothing unusual.

Then suddenly, over eight inconspicuous days in September, up popped Eye of the Wind, a 65-metre-tall wind turbine.

(Photo: Vancouver is Awesome)

There are more construction photos here. We can see it from our apartment, standing proudly atop the mountain. However, it doesn't yet turn. I've seen December and January start dates floating around, and I look forward to watching it turn from my couch. Apparently it was testing yesterday, and turned for a bit, but I missed it. (Twitter told me so.)

But, and there is a but, it's only going to generate 25% of Grouse's electricity needs, or the equivalent of enough power for just 400 homes. That leaves me a bit underwhelmed, but it is a great a start... Of course it will also raise awareness and become a landmark of BC's environmental consciousness, both of which are very important. And to put it in perspective, Germany has over 18,000 turbines, which provide 7% of the country's needs, and Denmark generates over 20% of its electricity from its 5,500+ turbines.

Carbon Roundup for Sunday, Nov 1, 2009

Montreal Gazette reporter Lesley Chesterman sings the praises of poilane bread, baked in France, flown into Montreal once a week, and sold only at hoity department store Holt Renfrew for a mere $56 per loaf. Her husband calls her an idiot for eating such a ridiculously carbon-intensive food. I'm with the husband. Bake your own bread, Lesley!

Toshiba is testing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology at a coal plant 900 km southwest of Tokyo, but it's only capturing 10% of the emissions, they don't know how to store those emissions, it could cause earthquakes, it could increase fossil fuel use, the plant takes 40% more energy to run using CCS, and it costs 60% more. Wow, super idea, guys!

And a couple weeks late, the USPS announces 20% emissions reductions over 2007 by 2020, a reduction of over 1 million tons. They've already replaced over 6,500 vehicles with hybrids, four-cylinder and flex-fuel models thanks to the stimulus package.

350 in Vancouver

Photo: Jon Breisnes

Just some of the 5,000+ people at Bridge to a Cool Planet, Vancouver's big event on October 24, 2009, for 350.org's International Day of Climate Action.

Note the awesome signs: "No Jobs on a Cooked Planet," "[Prime Minister] Harper - get your head out of the tar sands," and "We don't want your truckin' freeways!" My other personal fave was "I [heart] Ice Caps."

More photos, including Vancouver's human "350", at East of Main. 

Would you like guilt with that?

Can you imagine the US or Canadian governments promoting beans as a climate-friendly alternative to beef? The Swedish National Food Administration has done just that, putting out new climate-focused food guidelines.

The New York Times this week reported on Sweden's food-based efforts to measure and reduce their CO2e emissions:

New labels listing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods, from whole wheat pasta to fast food burgers, are appearing on some grocery items and restaurant menus around the country.

Among the most interesting tidbits in the piece is the discussion of Max Burger, a longstanding Swedish burger chain, where menus now feature GHG emissions figures for every. single. item. "Max De Luxe Burger"? 2.9 kh CO2e. But the "GI Chicken Burger"? A mere 0.3 kg CO2e. (Entire Menu, Google Translated) And the best part? It's actually changing behavior. Sales of lower-emissions items have risen 20% since the info went up.

Read more about Max's impressive environmental efforts. I wonder if they're actually healthier than the American chains in addition to being much greener... Oh, well, would you look at that--transfat and GMO-free. For fast food, these guys seem pretty great!

Can you imagine McDonald's or Burger King listing emissions data on their menus? No, I can't either.

ResponsibleTravel.com Ditches Offsets in Favor of Promoting Reductions

Last night, CBC's As it Happens featured Justin Francis, co-founder and managing director of British travel agency Responsible Travel. Responsible Travel was [at least one of] the first travel agent[s] to offer carbon offsets, way back in 2002. This month, they decided to be among the first to ditch them entirely. Their website explains their revised stance pretty clearly:

Say 'NO' to carbon offsetting and 'YES' to carbon reduction.

Here's the beginning of his As it Happens interview. He outlines the gist of his stance:

I felt [offsets] were being used in the wrong way. I think what's really important for us in our lives now is that we make changes to reduce the amount of carbon we're emitting. And the way carbon offsets were being used was by people who were making no changes to their lives, who were continuing to pollute, travel, fly, in exactly the same ways as they'd always done before, but by paying a little bit of money, were offsetting their guilt. [...]

To get to the level of carbon reduction we need, North America, Europe, Britain, needs to reduce its absolute amount of carbon that it emits. And the problem with carbon offsets is they're distracting us from that need. They're convincing us we can go on with no change to our lives, but paying a little bit of guilt money to offset our emissions.

He then spoke about his impressions of carbon neutral businesses vs. carbon aware businesses (my phrase, not his):

What I'm much more impressed with is not a political party, or a business, or an organization that has paid money for carbon offsets. What I'm much more impressed with is a political party or a business or organizations which can tell me how much they've reduced the absolute carbon that they emit into the atmosphere. and that year on year, they've managed to reduce those emissions. That lends far more credibility to your organization than having paid a little bit of money to offset your carbon emissions.

He also touched on offset quality and the particular challenges of forestry offsets (as discussed in my last post):

One of the most popular forms of carbon offset is to fund the planting of trees because trees absorb carbon dioxide. So by planting a new tree that would not have been planted, you are reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. And yet, the scientists are increasingly questioning whether that's valid, because what happens is after a time, that tree will die, and it will rot. When that tree rots, it re-emits all the carbon back into the atmosphere. So there is some debate about the science behind some forms of carbon offset.

But ultimately, he brought it back to his core message of reductions above all:

But my point is not necessarily about whether some offsets are good or bad. My point is more about they can not be used as an excuse to avoid the most important thing of all, which is reducing the amount of carbon that you emit.

So how does a travel agency make a business case around encouraging people to fly less? They promote taking the train, vacationing closer to home, avoiding domestic flights, not taking lots of short vacations, and enjoying fewer, longer vacations. Sounds easy enough, right? This is what my family has done in recent years. Last Christmas, we took the train over 2000 miles round trip to Saskatchewan to visit family. The train ride was an adventure in itself, and we were able to tack on a free stopover in Jasper, Alberta. This Christmas, we're flying almost halfway around the world to see family in Norway, but we're staying put for over a month and we're taking advantage of Iceland Air's free Reykjavik stopover policy and a return layover in Copenhagen to get two extra mini-vacations-within-a-vacation. Three trips for the carbon of one! The last time we flew to visit our family in Norway was over three years ago for another month-long visit. This summer we didn't travel at all, but instead visited Victoria, BC, this fall, just a short jaunt from our home in Vancouver. How have you reduced your travel emissions?

While I have purchased (high-quality) offsets for my own unavoidable air travel, I absolutely agree with Francis' core message. We need to achieve actual CO2e reductions; we can't afford to just offset the status quo. I think it is very gutsy for a green travel agency to take this stance, but I also think the way he's communicating his decision is clear, eloquent, and completely rational. However, I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Why not encourage--and even emphasize--absolute carbon reductions while still allowing and seeing the value in offsets when travel can't be avoided?

[The entire CBC interview is the first 8 min 10 sec of this archive audio at cbc.ca (autoloading WMV link).]

Of Airlines and Offsets

To their credit, most airlines seem to be offering carbon offsets these days. However, the quality of offsets offered varies dramatically. Some airlines are simply offering forestry offsets, which are controversial at best. They're completely barred from the Gold Standard, and the David Suzuki Foundation has laid out some of the arguments against forstry-based offsets, including methodology of measurement, permanence, and lack of space. Other airlines are offering a choice, which is better than strictly forestry. For some airlines, this choice includes offsets that meet the Gold Standard, one of the highest standards for carbon offsets.

Here's a summary of what some North American airlines are offering, with links to each program:

• United - choice of forestry, renewable energy, or Gold Standard
• Continental - choice of forestry, renewable energy, or Gold Standard
• Jet Blue - choice of forestry, renewable energy, or methane recapture
• American - mixed sources including renewable energy and forestry, unable to specify
• Delta - forestry
• Air Canada - forestry
• West Jet (Canadian discount domestic airline) - nothing, but if you click through from this page at Offsetters, West Jet will pay for renewable energy offsets on your behalf!

And bonus points go to Virgin Atlantic, who are not only the only airline I could find that only offers Gold Standard, but also let you purchase them onboard.

The question then becomes... Are inexpensive, poor quality offsets better than no offsets at all, or do they cheapen an important issue? Should airlines offer high-quality offsets, even if they are marginally more expensive? (We're talking less than $10 difference at most for a bi-coastal flight.)

I also would love to see numbers on how many (or more likely, how few) customers actually purchase the airline-offered offsets, but I can't find those stats.

You can read more on offset quality here.

Adaptation is Not an Option

This is part of a new ad campaign for a new exhibit at the Vancouver Aquarium. It's about the changes in Canada's arctic. Very catchy posters have appeared all over transit in the last week. Not just this nemo-beluga, but also a giraffe-caribou and a zebra-polar bear.

Pee Before You Fly

Here's an awesome GHG management strategy from a Japanese Airline: pee before you fly! ANA Airlines is testing the strategy and targeting a 5 tonne reduction over 30 days and 42 flights.

Based on an average human bladder capacity of 15oz, if 150 passengers relieved themselves on board an aircraft, this would amount to 63.7kg of waste.