Transportation is the second-highest contributor to greenhouse gas emission. Cars rank among the highest within this category, due to the way they are manufactured and the sheer number of them.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, passenger cars emit 5.19 metric tons of carbon dioxide per 12,500 miles. In the United States, this is 94-95% of the total emissions from transportation. While cars appear to be necessary in the United States, there are several easy, green alternatives to driving that will reduce your carbon footprint.

For individuals, a carbon footprint is the amount of carbon dioxide (from transport, food, energy consumption, manufactured goods, and more) emitted throughout a lifetime.

Scientists speculate that these gases are the cause of global warming. Limiting one’s carbon footprints can slow down catastrophic effects on the environment and delay the moment of peak oil, when oil production reaches its maximum rate and begins to decline.The EPA believes greenhouse gases are contributing to a global climate change, and causing the heat waves meteorologists predict for this summer.

To slow down climate change, it is a good idea for each person to start thinking about reducing his or her individual carbon footprint. Trains are a more energy-efficient way to travel. Compared to cars, they emit only 2% of the carbon dioxide in the United States, which makes them the lightest of all methods of transportation. Many countries are now using other methods, as opposed to power trains, that reduce their carbon footprint even further.

For example, in Japan, the Shinkansen, or ‘bullet train,’ utilizes electric or magnetic power depending on the train. Neither leaves any trace of a carbon footprint. This train is faster and more efficient than the conventional railway systems. The United States has already begun planning to implement these train systems in Florida, Texas, the Midwest (Chicago Area), the Northeast (Washington D.C.-Boston), and California. All of these train routes are expected to be completed by 2025.

For shorter trips, consider taking a bus. A bus emits 2.99 metric tons of carbon dioxide per 12,500 miles. This is already less carbon dioxide than cars, and can carry more people per trip. Bus companies themselves are making an effort to be “greener.” In California, Proterra has unveiled a hybrid-electric bus that is classified as a zero-emission vehicle.

About 15% of buses to date in California emit no greenhouse gases. Washington D.C., Philadelphia, St. Paul, Minneapolis, and many other cities have invested in these buses as well. New York City, a leader in investing, has even begun using these hybrids for school buses. Many people can now enjoy the comfort of a clean, quiet, efficient bus ride.

In China, a solar-powered bus called the 3D Express Coach, designed by the Shenzhen Hashi Future Parking Equipment Company, will save at least 860 tons of fuel each year, or 2,640 metric tons of carbon. With China’s overpopulation and heavy dependence on public transport, these buses will soon be mass produced and available all over the country. The bus straddles the highway, above the drivers. Yet it is faster, cheaper and cleaner compared to the cars it passes over.

If none of these options are available to you, try investing in a hybrid or electric car. These cars emit about one third of the gasses conventional cars do. Electric cars, however, need to be charged. At home, with a standard plug, this charging can take up to twelve hours. At electric fueling stations, cars can charge up to 80% in about 30 minutes.

Yet these stations are in select cities, and could possibly wear down the battery. Hybrid cars also offer the advantage of using fuel for long distances, or time away from electric refueling stations. Hybrid and electric cars are getting to be more and more affordable as car companies realize the importance of reducing carbon footprints.

For example, the hybrid Honda Insight gets 42 mpg and starts at $18,500. The all-electric Nissan Leaf gets the equivalent of 106 mpg and starts at $35,200. Plus, buying a hybrid and or electric car earns tax credit in some states. Companies are making hybrid SUVs and trucks as well, like the Lexus RX Hybrid and the Chevy Silverado Hybrid.

Consider walking or bicycling as healthy alternatives to driving. These also have no carbon footprint and are easily accessible. The bottom line: no matter your situation, there is an eco-friendly alternative to driving out there for everyone.

The article Discovering Green Alternatives to Driving appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

People say you are what you eat. In fact, what you eat affects far beyond just yourself and more than most people imagine. Several scientific studies state that eating meat is environmentally unfriendly, and that a diet based on vegetables and fruits is better for both your health and every aspect of the earth. But you may ask: how is that possible?

The answer is simple. As energy flows through the food chain, around 90 percent of it is lost while moving from one step to another.  If we decide to eat vegetables, fruits, cereals and harvest foods directly, we are saving 10 times more resources than choosing to eat meats like pork, chicken or beef although they are significant differences among them.

Feeding a herbivore, such as a cow, requires breeding it until it’s ready for slaughter. A cow will eat grain and drink water every day. Skipping one level can save up to 10 times more land, water, fertilizer, petrol for transportation, and so on.

According to a study from 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases. The numbers may seem high, but the crux of the matter can be found in what scientists call the “CO2 equivalent.”

Knowing that gases vary in greenhouse potency, every greenhouse gas expressed has an amount of CO2 with the same global-warming potential. For instance, when cows digest their food, they emit methane. Their manure, methane, and nitrous oxide have roughly 23 times the global-warming potential of CO2.

The FAO found that current production of meat contributes between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases the world produces every year. In 1999, Susan Subak, scientist at the University of East Anglia in England, found that, depending on the production method, cows emit between 3.6 and 6.8 kilograms of CO2 into the atmosphere for each kilogram of beef produced.

Gidon Eshel and Pamela A. Martin, from the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent, it would be as if they switched from a standard sedan to the ultra-efficient Prius, which generates 89 grams of CO2 per kilometer.

For example, the production of 2.2 pounds of beef is the mass required for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles. That amount can burn enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Another study, led by Akifumi Ogino of the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, showed the effects of beef production on water acidification and eutrophication owing the huge amount of manure that livestock farms produce at an undesirable output from meat production.

A bad management of animal´s manure often leads to water contamination as the non treated manure uses to disintegrate into the soil and after poisoning underground streams of water or be discharged in rivers of lakes directly. But this does not stopped many people from eating meat.

Beef consumption has increased both as population increases and as people in developing countries, such as south-east Asia, are increasing their living standards, allowing themselves to shift from a diet of rice and soya to more sophisticated foods as beef. The annual beef consumption per capita varies from 120 pounds in Argentina and 92 pounds in the U.S., to only a pound in Moldova.

The world average is about 22 pounds per person a year, according to the FAO for the year 2003. You can make a difference; think what is better for you, what is better for your environment and take a step forward. You don’t need to become a vegan. Just think about it, and the next time you go to a restaurant, choose the salad instead of the steak.

This is not about huge personal changes, it is about small, continuous social changes. The Earth will surely appreciate it.

The article Are the Foods we Eat Contributing to Global Warming? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The article How Does Cosmetics Pollute Our Water? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Five Chinese non-governmental organizations have accused Apple of adding to environmental degradation by using suppliers with known histories of environmental violations. The American company also faces strong criticisms for undermining social responsibility as its suppliers have been involved in serious work-related accidents and deaths.

A report released on Wednesday, which calls Apple out for taking “advantage of the loopholes in developing countries’ environmental management systems,” is threatening to cast a big shadow on Apple’s image.

One of the co-authors of the report Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, has been outspoken in several media outlets about Apple’s apparent disregard and unresponsiveness. The coalition of environmental groups has requested the help of businesses to map the companies’ impact on local communities;

Apple shied away from contributing to the report. Several electronics brands, including Samsung, Nokia and LG outsource all or part of their manufacturing. These orders are then picked up by suppliers with factories in, among other countries, China.

According to the New York Times, Apple spokesman Steve Dowling responded on Wednesday that the company had been aggressively monitoring its supply chain regularly.

“We require that our supplier provides safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes wherever Apple products are made,” Dowling said.

But at the same time, Apple has, according to GOOD magazine, defended its ranking in the environmental groups report as a result of their suppliers’ actions — not theirs. CNN reported that the Apple company found 80 facilities where storage and handling of hazardous chemicals was not done properly during the 2010 audit.

According to Apple’s own report, the company had requested the non-compliant facilities to correct their mistakes and document these processes but nowhere does it say if the request was granted.

Apple’s market share in China has grown exponentially and the busiest Apple store in the world is located there. Yet their presence in the mainland has caused controversy. Despite keeping their suppliers under wraps, the company has faced multiple production challenges.

The New York Times reports that one of Apple’s biggest suppliers was hit by a suicide wave among workers at several mainland facilities last year while an explosion at fire at another plant in southwest China in May killed two and injured more than a dozen.

Apple is not the only company to face harsh criticism for taking advantage of the Chinese system — several multinational corporations have, according to the New York Times, been accused of employing child labour, violating local labor laws and polluting water resources and land.

The article Apple Singled Out for Heavy Pollution in China appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.