Posts Tagged ‘CO2’

Hi!

I hope you enjoyed Jennifers post yesterday. As someone that have studied some biology, I loved the video:)

While cruising through my feedly list this morning, I came across something that made me smile. In a blog entry at greenversations, US EPAs blog, Lina Younes gives some tips about how to take care of your car in an environmentally friendly manner;

• Keeping your tires inflated to the recommended level. When tires are not inflated properly they increase the wear-and-tear of the tire and fuel costs.
• Getting regular tune-ups will go a long way to increasing fuel efficiency and improving the lifespan of your vehicle.
• Changing the oil regularly will contribute to a cleaner engine and lower vehicle emissions.
• Keeping your air filter clean will also protect the environment.

In addition to giving your car the proper maintenance, there are simple steps to contribute to pollution reduction. How can you keep emissions as low as possible? Here are some tips:

• Don’t top off.  Don’t fill up the car with gas after you hear the click at the pump! Continuing to fill the gas tank after you hear the click is a total waste of money and actually sends harmful gasoline vapors into the air.
• Whenever you can, combine errands in order to reduce unnecessary driving.
• Don’t drive aggressively.
• Avoid stop and go traffic. I know this is easier said than done, but with some planning you can avoid abrupt changes in speed which waste gas, generate emissions, and cause greater wear-and-tear on your car.

And she also writes;

For those interested in adopting greener behaviors to reduce their carbon footprint even further, changing your means of transportation might be a good start. How about leaving the car at home at least one day a week for starters? Carpooling, using mass transportation, biking are greener transportation alternatives. And how about good old fashioned walking?

Recognise the message? I do, and I am sure you recognise it to. Commute Greener! is build around common sense, which is not all that surprising since it was thought up at Volvo, the corporation with the motto “lets make sure”. Add to that a culture of common sense, well.

As you can see from Lina Younes words, its not difficult to start reducing your carbon footprint, if you are willing to commit to some changes. And taking the bus once a week isn’t difficult. A bike commute doesn’t have to be difficult either.And it is possible, even in traffic heavy areas. This video is from amsterdam, by the youtube-user amsterdamster;

But if we leave the bike commuting, car maintenance is an important environmental AND health factor, on top of being important for safety. Lina writes that you should always keep the tires inflated to recommended levels, but it IS (usually, check before trying) possible to go a little bit over that. Tire companies set the levels for a safe and comfortable drive, but with a slightly higher pressure you get a bit less fuel consumption, at the cost of a slightly bumpier ride. The tires can handle it, they won’t be damaged if the pressure is kept within reasonable levels.

Don’t drive aggressively and avoid start-stop driving, and save gas and money. Also, skip gears, from 2-4, 3-5 etc. Good planning let you avoid stopping at red lights. All this is part of Eco-driving, something all driving schools should teach. It isn’t difficult, let you drive smoothly ans save money in the long run. If you are interested, or have/work in a position were you drive a lot, it is well worth learning. Many drivers schools have courses, at least in Europe (I’m not sure about other parts of the world…), and you can always look up a webpage and learn the theory, and then practise.

Well, that’s it for today. Have a nice weekend. And remember to visit us at facebook and twitter, and Commute Greener!

I’m off

Fredrik

Hi

You know, I realised something today when i was looking through the blog. I have written much about habits, attitudes and different modes of transportation, but only mentioned ridesharing/carpooling. Silly of me… so here goes;

Picture this; you live in the suburbs, and bicycle and walking is out of the question as work is to far away or there are no roads were you can walk/cycle. The bus MIGHT be an option, but it is only scheduled for once an hour. So driving is the only option, and buying a new smaller car is to expensive. So how to green the commute? There is always a big chance that a neighbour commute in the same direction, right? After all, when you live in the suburb you usually work closer to the town centre, or in some big industry complex. There are probably more then one neighbour that work at the same company, or in a close location. So why not share a ride?

First of all, being social is not a bad thing. You get to know people and who knows; you might even have more in common then you thought. The commute becomes more bearable, and you will probably save some  money as you can take tours on whose car you use. AND you save CO2. If you are four persons in the car, and it emit 120 g CO2/km, you can divide that by four. 30 g/km is a lot less, right?

The downside is that you lose the freedom to just hop in and drive home whenever you want. If you work at different companies, or have slightly different work hours, it might be a problem. But I know people who do it, and it works well for them. It just take some planing.

Not all ridesharing have to be done with family members or neighbours. There are a lot of different ride-share initiatives going on all around the world. From the Swedish Skjutsgruppen to RideAlong in India to Carpoolworld… Easy to find with a simple Google search. Even Slugging may be an option, even if I find that one a bit… fishy. Be careful if you take THAT option…

OK, that was ride-sharing. What about carpools? Say that the mass transit IS an option, and you live closer to the centre of the city. Do you really need to OWN a car? Do you HAVE to use it every day? In Gothenburg and some other cities, carpools have become more common. You pay a monthly fee and can book a car for whenever you need it. After all, most car journeys are under five kilometres. If you don’t own the car and make it more inconvenient you plan more and use other modes of transport.

So you see, you can be green and still drive. Cars and their drivers aren’t evil, it is part of the culture. The last part need to change though, and this might be a good stepping stone. I might add that you should use eco-driving though. Makes the fuel consumption lower and save money and CO2.

That’s it for today. Have a nice weekend and Commute Greener!

I’m off

Fredrik

Hi!

You know, health is something one should talk about more often when addressing environmental problems. Everyone isn’t like the sporty boys/girls that exercise and are active 24/7. And it is just so easy to visualise, after all, when you can’t see your toes any more, you have a problem. But if you can’t, you probably drive more, as you are out of shape. Carbon Dioxide and climate change, were the effects take years to see and happens on the other side of the world is a bit harder to see.

One of our readers passed us a link on the topic of obesity and environmental problems. It is quite sad reading, but something that shows some major problems of today. Sure, the blog post IS aimed at the USA, but we are guilty in Europe to, and the rest of the world as well. The main points are:

1) We are getting fatter. This is true in north America as well as the rest of the world.

2) We rely more and more on our cars for transportation

3) As we get fatter, bigger cars become more popular, not as a status symbol but because they are spacier.

4) Big cars have generally a higher fuel consumption, and with more driving and heavier cars + loads; do the math. The answer is CO2 emissions on the rise, as well as weight problems with all the following complications.

This raises an interesting question in my opinion. Is it possible to use health campaigns to stave off global warming? Probably not, who like it when someone tells you that you are fat and need to diet. Health campaigns are a good thing, very good actually, but I don’t think they have that good reach.

But still, if we could get people to drive less, some major health problems could be dampened. So in other words, join a bike challenge, or challenge your family, friends and co-workers. 30 minutes of bicycling to work is not much time but in the long run you get so much healthier. And by teaching your children to take the bike you keep them in shape and create healthy habits.

But we all know that getting a motorist to take the bike, or ride the bus can be difficult. And then we are back to challenges and creative thinking. Or “bribes” and rewards. Whatever does the job.

Even taking the mass transit can have positive health effects, as a ten minute walk to the bus stop is much better then driving from door to door. So try it out.

And while you do, take some pictures and send to us, or upload them on our facebookpage. And be sure to follow us on twitter as well. And remember to Commute Greener!

/

Fredrik

Hi guys!

You know, we are quite focussed on environmental factors here at Commute Greener!. Or at least I am. I tend to block out other (not so) small factors like health and money. Yes, I am an environmental nerd:-). I guess it is my interest in science that does it. But lately, we have been discussing health benefits more and more at the office. This has always been a focus of Commute Greener!, but CO2 measurements and reductions has had a higher priority… But the health benefits really adds up! A short example: a 30 minutes bike commute equals 60 minutes exercise (to and from work). Do this some times per week and you have a good amount of exercise, probably loose weight and gain a lot of stamina, without going to the gym.

I found this blog through the bike commute tips blogs facebook page. Well worth a read. Apparently, the states in USA with highest obesity factor have the least zero emission commuters, and vise versa. Now, a blog post is not scientific data, and should always be taken with a grain of salt. But that post is based on the yearly Gallup health survey, and it paint a grim picture. People are getting heavier, and exercise less. Heart problem and high cholesterol are running rampart. Not exactly a good development. I won’t say anything about Europe or the rest of the world as I don’t have the corresponding numbers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the trend is somewhat the same. And I mean, look at this:

Something has to be done. This epidemic is related to travel and eating habits. These factors are not the only one of course, but they are the most obvious.  Loads of sugar and fat, hamburgers, fries, soft drinks, you name it. Add poor exercise habits to that, and a habit of driving everywhere, and you get this situation. The whole western world need to change attitude. I know, I sound like a broken gramophone now. Somehow, this get into every entry. But it is true. As stated above, taking the bike to work, or walk, is good for you. Even public transportation is better for the health then driving as the walk to the station adds up. This is a factor that is just as important as carbon emissions when talking about a greener commute.

And it is possible to change habits to a healthier commute. We can take an example from the real world. As I have written some weeks back, the city of Gothenburg have used Commute Greener!. On the departments that have done best, the amount of zero emission kilometres are high. Together the departments (or teams) have saved over a ton of CO2, and collected enough zero emission kilometres as a trip to Shanghai… And this in only ten weeks. A very good job indeed.

Well, that’s it for today. Give us a like at facebook, and follow us on twitter for news, interesting articles and comments on environmental issues.

I’m off

Fredrik

Hi!

To many, the commute is one of the most stressful times of the day. I have even found a scientific article that stated that the risk of heart problems increase if you are a car commuter. Sitting in line waiting for the traffic to start moving again is not only annoying and bad for the environment, it is time you could do other things.

But how? As mentioned in several earlier entries, driving is the only option for many people. Or so they think. Also as mentioned, an attitude change will have to happen sooner rather then later. In USA, bike commuting is a rare phenomenon. There is even a debate about if bike lanes will be fair to the drivers. In Europe bike commutes are more common. Denmark, Berlin, London; people are getting better at leaving the car at home. An North American example is New York; New Yorkers save loads of money since they have a good mass transit system. In big cities were driving is difficult and slow, what reason is there to drive other then biking not being safe? That is something that can be fixed with some adjustment to the regular roads.

IBM recently released a study using a Commute pain index. According to them, Beijing tops the list, while Stockholm is at the bottom. No surprise there. Beijing have a huge amount of people in a small space, and is well known for its crowded streets. And while Stockholm have quite few inhabitants, only about one million, it also have a great subway and bus system. It is also a good city to bike through. One interesting thing is that the the traffic in the streets began to thin out as the city implemented a congestation tax. This made more people choose to use public transportation, or even bike/walk to work. And people are quite satisfied with this, if I understand things right.

Maybe this is the way to go. Hit the drivers were it hurts, the wallet. Even if the price is low, it suddenly become reality that driving has a cost. And that make people think one more time.

Another interesting thing about the study is that most people stated that they would work/study more if they didn’t spend so much time stuck in traffic. So a car commute hurt your health AND affect the work and study results as well. In other words, public transportation, especially the kind with internet access could be a success, IF the same people just tried it. Of course, this mean that the transit must be fast, reliable, comfortable and safe. And that is were the government/cities come in. In many part of the world that kind of infrastructure don’t exist. Yet. I would also like to point out that when you choose the bike over the car, you will get in better shape, and have more stamina for work/studies.

I would like to end this by asking; why do we think the commute is such a pain? The answer varies, but “being stuck in traffic” comes high on the list. But do something about it then. Find other ways to commute!

By the way, be sure to give us a like on facebook, and to follow us on twitter.

I’m off!

Fredrik

Hi!

I’m both exiting and sceptical today… The whole “green” community on the Internet seems to be talking about the new Chinese commute option. Or I should say possible future option. It is a bus that should be able to take  1400 commuters, without disturbing the regular traffic. The “bus” is hollow, letting cars drive under it while it drive along rail or painted support lines. Now this is one heck of an idea. This hulking monster is supposed to run of electricity and solar power too, with minimal disturbance to regular traffic. It sounds to good to be true, right? Well, maybe, buses in Shanghai and several cities run of electricity so it may be possible. There are still some major logistic problems to sort out, even when all the engineering is done but the Chinese are resourceful.They may pull this one off.

The most exiting thing about this project, in my opinion, is that it may cut the car traffic by 30 %. That is a lot of CO2, which is even more important in a growing economy like China were more and more are getting a car. It is also an interesting example of looking outside the box, even if the basic idea isn’t new (if you are going to trust rumours and blog comments… I have never heard of it before). I have written several times about the importance of good options and infrastructure for commuters. Sometimes driving is the only option, but this monster may make it possible for massive amounts of people to choose to let the car rest. Options can lead to curiosity, and humans are curious by nature.

Another good thing with this project is that it have opened up debate on the internet. I am not much for spectacle, but this kind of thing draws so much attention that people may start to look at their own city, and their own options. That in turn may well lead to a political debate about alternative or better public transportation. That is of course speculation.

This kind of project can’t be easy to implement. Chinese cities have such a vast amount of commuters so this kind of solution make sense. Could a smaller version be used in the west? Would it be needed here? It is too soon to say, in my opinion. But this project is exciting.

/

I’m off

Fredrik

Hi!

CO2 is a huge problem. Well, that’s a no brainer. Transportation is a huge contributor of CO2, even if energy and industry, as well as our homes play big parts. One way to reduce CO2 emissions from transportation is alternate fuels. Oil will have to go. After all it is not an infinite resource. Ethanol, gas, and electricity powered vehicles are already on the market, and are getting more and more common. Ideally their fuel should all be produced in a climate smart way, but that is not always the case.

I admit that this is not my area of expertise (environmental management is more my cup of tea), but if electricity from a coal plant is used in an electric car, should it really be called clean? Can ethanol from grain grown in Brazil (example) and transported by ship (fueled by dirty high sulphur oil) to Europe or North America to be processed and then transported to gas stations be called clean? Considering that oil is also transported long distances for processing and distribution ethanol may still be a better alternative. And what about availability? Is there an infrastructure for ethanol developed in the region? What I am getting at is that the question of alternative fuels is way more complicated then just the CO2 emissions from a car with a petrol engine vs. an ethanol car. These are complicated questions, and I don’t have a good answer to them.  If ethanol is produced and used locally, for example coming rest products from wood industry (pulp/paper mills, saw mills etc.), it may be a good replacement in the future. And as far as emissions go, it is better then oil.

It is very interesting to follow the development of alternative fuels. I hope that in a (hopefully) not to distant future the norm will be alternative fuels, and that fossil fuels is in a clear minority on the roads.  Just look at fuel cells and biofuel from algae. While fuel cells are way to expensive right now, and genetic modification of algae is risky, expensive and in early stages of development, they may play a role in the future. One may even speculate if algae-fuel would be good as a carbon sink as the strains used use up lots of CO2 in their metabolism. The question is if it is worth the risk of genetic modified algae escaping into the oceans, and in a worst case scenario out-compete the regular species. And is the risk even there? Difficult ethical questions that the fuel industry will have to answer in the future.

The last “new” bio-fuel I would like to address is bio-gas, ie gas from sewage plants and similar facilities. Many buses and taxis in Sweden run on such gas, and it is a workable system, that even fit into the vision of a resource efficient society. I mean, even human excrements have their uses.

Next time you commute by bus, or take a cab, take a look at what fuel it run of. You may be surprised. Or not. Diesel is still one of the more common fuels for buses, but gas is getting more common, at least were there is infrastructure for it. Think and act for a positive climate change.

Well, that’s it. I’m off for today. You know the drill, follow us at facebook and twitter. And remember to Commute Greener!

/

Fredrik

Hi! I’m back!

I found a very interesting article about acid rain today. Do you remember when I wrote about NOx, and mentioned acid rain? This little problem, that have fallen from the spotlight have crawled its way up into the debate again.

Time to harp on drivers again! No, I’m kidding. But CO2 aside, transportation is a huge source of pollution. Particles, NOx, sulphur (mostly from ships) and runoff can do nasty things to our beloved environment. Acid rain is one of those things. It works like this:

Acid rain picture from Wikipedia Commons

In the 70′s and 80′s, sulphur was the main villain. Three-way-converters (a Volvo innovation by the way)  became more common in cars, and NOx from transportation was thought to be more or less a non-issue. (And that is why the picture don’t show it as a contributor, but the principle is the same.) Coal power plants got strict regulations on sulphur emissions, as did petrol manufacturers. So, problem solved, right?

Well, no. We still had the problem of fertilizers, one of the dirtiest but most important parts of the green revolution. And no, I don’t mean the wave of eco-friendliness that moves like a tsunami over the internet right now. I mean agriculture wave during the 50′s that is still in progress today… Fertilizer leak nitrogen via runoff from fields and through vaporising. And it is the biggest contributor to acid rain there is. This is old news, and lots are being done to change this.

The second biggest contributor to acidification used to be coal plants, but with the vast number of vehicles that are on the roads today it is no surprise that transportation have taken that place. Vehicles today are much cleaner and more effective than old ones, but there are a significantly higher number of cars and trucks on the roads today. You can see where I am going with that argument.

What is so bad about acid rain then? Well, excessive acidification damages plants, and may destroy sensitive limnic (freshwater) ecosystems. Acid lakes contain little life, and many types of trees can’t grow in acid soil. In urban areas acid rain damages concrete buildings and wither stonework. Take a look at an old statue that have been exposed to acid rain… not a pretty sight:

Damaged by acid rain

And as of late, the acidification of the oceans have become a focus in the environmental debate. I must admit that I don’t know enough to comment on this, but it does sound scary…

But what do we do about this problem? Well, I’m no scientist, and even if I was I wouldn’t have the answer. Many things play a part here, as in every subject of environmental science. However, we will have to stop our excessive driving. Telecommuting (ie working from home), public transportation, new infrastructure to let bike riders commute safely, etc will play a huge role in coming to terms with many problems. But it is not a total solution. There is no complete solution that I know of yet. Feel free to link to any research to prove me wrong, as I am always looking for things like that.

But once again, you who use Commute Greener!, and everyone that choose public transportation or zero emission alternatives are playing a part for a better environment. Not only are you helping the reduction of the worlds carbon emissions, you are helping the reduction of acidification (the result of acid rain) and many different things. You can feel proud of yourselves!

I hope you have found this interesting. I did! Remember to follow us on twitter and facebook and to Commute Greener!

I’m off for today

Fredrik

Hi everyone!

This Monday, I went of on a rant about transportation, campaigns and some other stuff. Today, I red an article at grist.org. It is about the rather pessimistic tone the environmental debate have taken in USA, were the “left” wing present ideas to solve environmental problems and the right wing shoots them down, in the name of the market. This is a very simplified picture of course. And I am sure it isn’t totally like this in USA.

But it does raise a couple of new questions that I have touched before. The government need to understand that the car isn’t sacred, and that mass transit actually is a good thing. The car isn’t sacred, as the Michael Linds article that the Grist article was based on seems to assume. It is true that rich countries have a higher density of cars, as people can afford them. Does that mean that public transportation isn’t an option in the future, especially in urban areas? And the reason many drive to work from the suburbs is 1) habit and 2) lack  of descent mass transit systems. So when new suburbs are built, make sure there are bus-lines! Trains may be expensive, but buses use the same infrastructure as the rest of the traffic. This is how it is done in Sweden, at least in cities that think ahead.

Michael Lind is right on one thing though… Asphalt may not be exciting, but new and low particle emitting asphalt is something to pay out for. It reduces wear and tear on the road, noise, particles and lowers fuel consumption, and thereby CO2 and NOx…
But the bottom line is that there have to be an attitude shift. I have said that before, haven’t I. Both from the politicians point of view and from the people. I am not talking about USA here, but in general. While the European governments are less conservative and are more keen on discussing CO2, there is still to much discussion and to little action. And climate denialists and traditionalists exist here to. The difference is that religion is less of an issue in the politic game in Europe and the climate model is the norm. I am not going to harp about religion being bad, because in itself there is nothing wrong with being religious. Hiding behind it or using the argument “god wants it” is a bit medieval though, right?

Ok, I got sidetracked again… Sorry. Attitude shifts… I really think that the conservative wing, regardless of continent view environmentalists as smug, self righteous, smug hippies. And there are many of them around. You know who you are! Many seems to hate cars, or even development. But is this how most people who work with environmental issues are. Is this how most interested persons out there are? Once again, to much focus is placed in the wrong places. Get serious and see opportunities instead of sticking the head in the sand. So much could be done for the environment if one started to look for opportunities. Wind and solar power and publit transportation are some of those opportunities. In Europe, they have expanded. Why haven’t they in North America? With the oil-spill, declining amount of fossil fuels, climate change, thinning glaciers and disturbed weather, it is time to open our eyes!

Well, I’m off. I have some statistics to finish. Have a nice one, and remember to follow us on facebook and twitter, and to Commute Greener!

/

Fredrik

Hi!

It’s been a while since I wrote about environmental problems. Ranting is just more fun, especially at the end of the day. But while writing yesterday, I realised I have forgotten one of the more important but obscure environmental problems; VOC’s. This is why I love environmental issues; there are always more angles to look at, and more contributing factors.

Ok, what the heck is a VOC? Yep it’s another of those funny letter-codes that no one gets. VOC stands for Volatile Organic Compound. These compounds come from MANY sources. Natural VOC like turpentine come from pine trees while common anthropogenic sources are paint, fuel, printers (the ink) building material and combustions. This group of substances is as varied as a high school, and just as unruly. The VOC group include everything from carbon monoxide and turpentine to formaldehyde and pesticides. The only common ground is that they have a carbon base and mix with the air in gaseous form. Many VOCs are carcinogenic like benzene and carbon compounds are a part of the smog-build up chain. So we need to take it seriously, don’t you agree. Added to that most chemicals we use in day to day life and in industry emit VOCs during use and storage and we have a problem. Even dry products like impregnated wood and furniture release a steady stream of organic compounds.

VOC’s are an environmental problem, but mostly in an indoor environment. Malls and buildings with indoor parking spaces can have high levels of benzene. During my studies, some students tested benzene levels in one of Gothenburg’s largest malls with adsorbent tubes and air pumps. The levels were higher then it should have been as air got filtrated down from the garage on the third floor.

(Fun story from this survey; if I remember correctly, there were some very funny readings when the first tube was analysed… it turned out that a random junkie had decided to smoke under the equipment, and I’m not talking about tobacco here. I wish was there to see the students faces when they saw TBC on the analysis results).

Truth to be told, VOCs are unavoidable. When we drive, take the bus, ride a bike, or were clothes we contribute to the emissions of VOCs. But much is being done for cleaner air. One example is that PFOS (a substance used as fire retardant) is being phased out.Fire retardants in general are developed to release as little as possible now, but there have been a huge increase in flame-proof clothing, furniture and machinery…

By using public transportation we can reduce a number of environmental problems, but this is one we will never be totally free from. And most of them do no real harm to humans anyway. You need a high and long term exposure to benzene to get cancer, or develop other problems. Smog is another issue that need to be addressed, but it is more common to approach that issue from the NOx angle.

I hope you have found this interesting. If you want more information, check out US EPA, they have good information about VOC and a number of other subjects. And if you have questions, feel free to ask here or at facebook or twitter.

I’m off to lunch!

Fredrik