http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/fashion/25gym.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

There is no shortage of incentives to working out: good for the cardiovascular system, helps lose weight, increases serotonin levels in the brain that help us feel better, relieves stress, etc. But while many people turn to home gym equipment or their neighborhood fitness center, electricity is eaten up by all this activity.

But what is happening to the energy we produce through sweaty, exhausting workouts? In the early days of our country, that energy was harnessed through labor and household chores that are now obsolete due to technology. Now, developers in places like Portland, Oregon are finding ways to put this hard work back to use. By fitting stationary bikes with an arm crank and hooking them up to generators, people can burn hundreds of calories while generating hundreds of watts of electricity in response. Clubs around the country are coming up with numerous ways to revolutionize exercise into an energy advocate rather than abuser.

The club has energy efficient treadmills, remanufactured elliptical trainers and barbells “rescued from negligent owners on Craigslist,” Mr. Boesel said. Wall-mounted solar panels, to be installed this fall, will generate about eight kilowatts of electricity, he said. The gym doesn’t have any showers or drinking fountains, and the club’s 70 members live within walking distance, “which is probably the greenest part of the gym,” Mr. Boesel said.

 

The idea to install power generating machines came from a Hong Kong club, California Fitness, that opened last year with similar equipment. On the same day the Microgym opened, the Ridgefield Fitness Club in Ridgefield, Conn., installed yet another version of the technology from a company called the Green Revolution — on 17 of the club’s stationary bicycles.

 

“There’s an undercurrent,” Mr. Boesel said. “In 20 years, all cardio equipment will probably have the capability of generating electricity.”

 

The typical health club uses a huge amount of energy and water, said John Kersh, a former director of international development for the International Health, Racquet & Sportsclub Association. But a growing number of conservation-conscious consumers are beginning to change that, he said. “It’s not just, ‘How do you get fit?’ ” Mr. Kersh said. “It’s: ‘How do you make your lifestyle healthier? How do you reduce your carbon footprint?’ ”

Of course, anyone can ride their bike or run outside and not need an electrical outlet. But several people utilize gyms when the weather conditions are bad, late at night, or when there are few desirable outdoor areas at their disposal. While the infrastructure costs of these new operations are also daunting, so is the cost of doing nothing. That may be enough incentive to get people off the couch and start generating some power of their own.

The New York Times; September 25, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080922100148.htm

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/181e160e-883e-11dd-b114-0000779fd18c.html

Climate change has altered several industries, and brought intense pressure to decision makers to respond rapidly to the problem. Recently, investors in London have chosen to challenge the usual measurements of a quality investment by asking for companies to provide information that reveals their carbon footprint. As they look ahead to further costs of not adapting to new policies and procedures to manage the issue, investors seek to avoid placing their money into a company that fails to weigh the financial risks they predict for the future.

The investors are basing their decisions on the belief that emissions will be more closely regulated around the world in future, giving companies that already manage their emissions a competitive advantage. They are also weighing other factors, such as the risk that companies may face future litigation, and the possible ill effects of climate change, such as floods and storms.

With uncertain economic times in the United States, it might be effective for companies to start reporting a reduction in carbon emissions as one way to win back investors around the world. If they haven't understood the impact of a strategic response to climate change, competitors might win with the corporate model that has emerged out of the enviromental crisis.

The Financial Times; September 22, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080911150048.htm

Normally, discussion about climate change and global warming generates images of ice melting. As glaciers disappear, hurricanes surge and tides rise, warming is observed through various examples of hotter water. But as scientists have studied in Antarctica, ice that remains intact is the key to many understandings of what is occurring to the Earth's atmosphere. The ice filled region of the South Pole contains ice cores, which are accumulations of ice and snow over a period of several years. Within the ice cores is relevant information that indicates the levels of important greenhouse gases with each time in history. Scientists have been using ice cores to analyze the global carbon cycle and climate for 70,000 years and have found more evidence to link climate change to increased carbon dioxide levels.

In the last Ice Age, as during most of Earth's history, levels of carbon dioxide and climate change are intimately linked. Carbon dioxide tends to rise when climate warms, and the higher levels of carbon dioxide magnify the warming, Brook said. These natural cycles provide a "fingerprint" of how the carbon cycle responds to climate change.

In contrast to the relatively low levels of carbon dioxide in the Ice Age, the burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution has led to levels of greenhouse gases that by comparison are off the charts. The level of atmospheric carbon dioxide today is about 385 parts per million, or more than double that of some of the lower levels during the Ice Age. These changes have taken place at a speed and magnitude that has not occurred in hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer. Past studies of ice cores have suggested that Earth's temperature can sometimes change amazingly fast, warming as much as 15 degrees in some regions within a couple of decades.

While the ice cores are not melting, they are providing alarming evidence that the present levels of greenhouse gases are troubling. With these observed correlations, scientists have further proof that their predictions of a warming climate are correct. By their estimations, it appears that a continuously hotter Earth is inevitable if nothing is done to reduce the climbing levels of carbon dioxide.

Science Daily; September 15, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122107824722120577.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL95271320080909

Although small and only a start, Germany has entered the carbon capture and storage field with a new coal plant, located in the town of Schwarze Pumpe. The plant, produced by Vattenfall, will produce practically carbon-free power. While much smaller in scale and output than typical coal plants, the technology demonstrates a movement towards alternative energy around the world.

The plant operates through an oxyfuel boiler. Oxygen is injected into the boiler, powdered lignite (a type of coal with a high moisture content) is added, CO2 is produced and is then seperated and condensed to a smaller volume to be buried underground.

"Everybody's always criticizing CCS for never having a fully working model. Well here's one fully working model," said Stuart Haszeldine, a geologist at Edinburgh University and CCS expert.

 

"Maybe by 2013 you could predict a full size power station operating with CCS."

 

Coal is cheap and plentiful but also produces more heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) than energy sources such as oil, gas and renewables. CCS works by trapping those gases from coal plants and burying them in porous rocks underground.

 

A U.N. panel of climate experts says the technology could underpin the fight to slow rising temperatures and avert more powerful storms, droughts and rising seas.

 

CCS also has the support of many governments. But some environmental organizations say it is a distraction which will delay a global transition to renewable alternatives such as solar power, away from fossil fuels like coal, and accuse energy companies of making token investments.

 

"We're taking our responsibility seriously," said Josefsson at the inauguration of the 70 million euro ($98.92 million) plant built over two years which sits next to a conventional coal-fired plant 100 times as large.

A major downside to this new attempt is the damage it does to consumers' pocketbooks. Right now, CCS plants would raise power prices beyond what they are already at. As many other developing plans like wind and solar continue to mature, this plan is still stuck in the very early stages of development and implementation.

Reuters; September 9, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7600005.stm

Several palates will be skeptical of this new strategy, but UN climate change scientists have a new way to combat greenhouse gas emissions – by challenging our daily diet. Most people have meat with each meal, and according to new estimates by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, this habit is the blame for 18% of the greenhouse gases that are released into the atmosphere. The UN scientists conclude that if people lower their consumption of meat products, demand is lowered and less farm area is necessary. While many people understand the main culprit to be the animals releasing methane through their waste product, that is actually only one part of the problem. The primary issue is the land clearance that occurs when more farmland is needed, which occurs with the increased demand for more meat production. The loss of tropical forest land is especially crucial in contributing to the global warming trend.

The FAO figure of 18% includes greenhouse gases released in every part of the meat production cycle - clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in farm vehicles, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep.

 

The contributions of the three main greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide - are roughly equivalent, the FAO calculates.

 

Transport, by contrast, accounts for just 13% of humankind's greenhouse gas footprint, according to the IPCC.

 

Dr. Pachauri will be speaking at a meeting organised by Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), whose main reason for suggesting people lower their consumption of meat is to reduce the number of animals in factory farms.

 

CIWF's Ambassador Joyce D'Silva said that thinking about climate change could spur people to change their habits.

 

"The climate change angle could be quite persuasive," she said.

 

"Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realize that changing what's on their plate could have an even bigger effect."

Since several hamburger enthusiasts have trouble grasping the concept of giving up meat, changes in the production process could be a more welcoming approach. And while people may be resistant to giving up their craving for meat, restaurants and other food distributors might choose to encourage a changed diet, similar to their approach to using less plastic bags and packaging. A mix of societal, governmental, and corporate controls will have to account for any change that occurs to the standard "meat and potatoes" mentality.

BBC NEWS; September 7, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford