Posts Tagged ‘CO2’

Yesterday Volvo Group announced that Gretchen Daily, professor at Stanford University in California, is awarded Volvo Environment Prize 2012. And of course we we congratulate Gretchen to her progressive efforts on putting a price on Mother nature! She is convinced that the only way to create long-term welfare is to quantify the value of ecosystems.

“….the problem is that so much of the ecosystems and the services we get from them are, in principle, valued at zero. We need to work pragmatically to fix this. If we can demonstrate economically the enormous benefits of pollination by insects or natural protections against climate change and floods, then investments in nature will become part of everyday life. We’re talking about 21st-century environmental protection.”

Do you know that you now can be awarded and get real-life benefits when you Commute Greener? We are convinced that all your steps towards sustainable future should be awarded. Enjoy the benefits, you are worth it! I am happy if you share your experience, comments or just feedback at Facebook. Is it a good idea to be awarded if you Commute Greener??

It will be even more easier and more enjoyable to Commute Greener since the new Commute Greener Facebook app soon will be launched…. Like us, stay updated and  join the new Commute Greener movement!

Happy Tuesday and Commute Greener!

/Karin

Hi everyone!

You know, sometimes it is easy to understand why some people don’t believe in the scientists when they are saying that earth is warming and the climate is changing. It is such a huge problem that it is almost impossible to get ones head around.

Global Warming. Source: Wikipedia Commons

Couple that with a healthy dose of misunderstanding of the lingo of the academic world and methods, mistakes made in the IPCC report and all rather aggressive discussion amongst the scientists themselves, where some are very public with their notion that everybody but

themselves are wrong and it is a wonder that anybody actually see the problem at all.

One of those skeptic scientists recently published an article in the wall street journal about how he put his own group together to come to terms with the problem as he mistrusted the methods of data gathering and processing made by many other scientists. Professor Richard Muller and his team spent some time gathering new data and developing new methods to analyze the data, and came to an conclusion.

Global warming is indeed real. Or to quote his article;

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that. -Richard A Muller, Wall street journal

Studies like these are the heart of science. It is all about testing and retesting a hypothesis, trying to prove it wrong. Which is partly a reason to why so many distrusts scientists as they can’t say that anything is “true”. Hopefully this is one step on the long road towards a global acceptance of the problem, and possibly even a starting point on the road to mitigating the problem. More and more evidence is turning up that points towards an anthropogenic global warming. It is time to start doing something against it.

There are many reasons to remain skeptic and not to swallow everything on the net or in media. But the “great arguments among the climate scientists” is no reason just lay back and do nothing. Even the skeptic scientists are coming up with “positive” results nowadays. In other words, get of that couch and start doing something about the problem. There are thousands of ways to reduce your energy and resource use. Insulation, low energy or LED lamps, buying local food, reducing meat and soda consumption etc etc. are great ways to start.

Driving less is also a very good way to reduce your CO2 footprint as well as reducing several other environmental problems. One bus can swallow vast amounts of cars. A train can swallow ten times that number. Biking or walking is even more environmentally friendly, but not an option for everyone. The point is that there are so many ways you can help reduce global warming. It is just a matter of getting started and finding the right tools to do it. By the way, have you heard of Commute Greener!

I’m out of here

Fredrik

Whether you believe in climate change or not you probably want a good future for your children. We humans are programmed to look after our offspring but anything that is not a concrete threat is easy to overlook. Such as climate change/global warming. This is a very abstract threat after all, and not even the scientists understands it at its fullest. That doesn’t mean the threat isn’t there though.

In environmental law there is a very interesting principle that deals with responsibility for damaging the environment; the Polluter Pays Principle, or PPP. As you may guess from the name the principle basically states that if you mess the environment up you are going to pay for correcting that. At least in a simplified form, there are most often other legal stuff involved dealing with how much is reasonable to pay for this correction etc etc. Large corporations which operate within countries with this principle are usually quite careful not to mess things up too much as they will get a hefty bill on probing and then sanitizing the polluted area if discovered. This is also one of the reasons businesses are working towards bettering themselves in the environmental area; paying less for damages is better then having to get both a fine and bad PR.

However when it comes to individuals this rule doesn’t seem to apply. Sure, if you pollute your own land the government may step in depending on which country it is and what the law says. I have been out on a couple of errands like that during my education, and it isn’t pretty.  Things like CO2 emissions and the like are totally absent here however. Yet how we live have great impact on our climate. And here comes an ethical dilemma; can we really carry on like we do and just let our children take the hit 50 years from now?

Most people would answer no to that. I am one of them, but you have probably guessed that already. However what usually follows that answer is the standard bombardment of excuses;

• I am just one person so I can’t make a difference
• Industry pollutes so much so it doesn’t matter if I change habits
• Why should I change my habits and way of life when everybody else doesn’t
• I can’t change how I live
• We can’t be sure that climate change really is man made

Etc Etc. Fact of the matter is that a single person can contribute a lot in fighting climate change. Just look at how Al Gore and his famous upped the awareness of the masses. Or how the “one tonne life” works to reduce their CO2 footprint. Or how much you saved when riding the bike instead of driving to work today.

How we live affects the world a lot. Sure, industry has to do their part, especially power plants and heavy industry, but the individual person have a responsibility as well. By changing your commute habits you have taken a big step towards reducing your CO2 footprint as well as serving as an example to others, showing that it IS possible. Even if you live in suburbia and works on the other side of town with no buses you can still change your habits by planing your errands, ride-sharing and driving with the eco-driving techniques.

The last point on the excuse list is actually both the easiest and most difficult thing to explain to someone reluctant to change their lifestyle. That lovely miscommunication between the scientific world and the one where we regular mortals live is ridiculous as well as totally expected. I am of course talking about the global warming THEORY. In science you don’t say that something is 100% sure, you use statistics and there is always room for error or changed views as new facts enter the stage. Is the fact that they can only say that the possibility that anthropogenic global warming exists is just 99% enough reason to just ignore the entire issue?

No it isn’t. So get started changing habits and making your life greener, one thing at the time. My tip is to start with the commute as that is often a very ingrained habit. If you can change your commute pattern then you can change almost anything!

Get a CO2 pedometer, ie Commute Greener! (it is free and works for web or iPhone), see how much you emit in one week and start trying to reduce that number. Get some friends and coworkers to compete with you, and make it fun. Maybe the entire office and int he end company could enter this contest (another area Volvo IT and commute greener could lend a helping hand with setting up groups etc). You will be surprised how much CO2 you will save and how fun you will have in the process. All the while you are taking the first (?) step towards taking responsibility for your personal Carbon Dioxide footprint. Helping saving the world doesn’t have to be boring or difficult after all.

Have a nice weekend and Commute Greener!

Fredrik

Let’s keep the train theme from yesterday. After all, this kind of transportation deserves some attention as well, and there have been a lot of bike related stuff on the site lately.

Lots of Swedes work in a city different from the one they live in. Because of that we have a fairly well developed public transportation system, as not everyone own a car. Chaining the commute, using trains for fast and effective transportation is both more comfortable and better for the environment then driving. It is no wonder that the government want more people to use that system instead of driving.

Wouldn't riding one of these be nice for the commute? Foto: Wikipedia Common

Another country with a well developed train commute system is Great Britain. Like Sweden the distances are long and people are mobile. Trains open up a larger area to look for work in, something which get more and more important today. Some British friends of mine have become true masters of green commuting, doing everything from eating breakfast to bank errands while on the rail. And believe me, while that kind of lifestyle can be stressful it may also let you relax as all the boring stuff is done when you get home.

The Japanese has to get some credit for their very well developed train network as well. They commute long distances in a relatively short time, without much of a problem. The trains are even on time, some.thing which is not always guarantied.

So there are great possibilities for a train commute all over the world. And the savings in CO2 are great as well. With a CO2 emission rate of some 35 g/km, and commutes that lasts for at least 30 minutes with this rather fast mode of transportation, you save a LOT of greenhouse gases by taking the train. You also drop a lot of other emissions like particles, NOx and so on that would have been emitted if driving. A car with an emission rate of some 120 g/km (ie. “low emission”) would emit some 12 kilograms of CO2 on an 100 km commute (a quite common distance for long range commuting) while a train only would emit some 3,5 kg on the same distance. That is a lot of CO2 to be saved there, especially when considering that a train easily can swallow hundreds of passengers. THAT is a LOT of CO2…

If you have a long commute, and have the opportunity to use a commuter train, try it out. It is not so bad and you can get a lot of stuff done while on the go. With some proper planning and preparations you can have a comfortable commute with a lot of time for yourself, or with time for Internet errands which leaves time for more fun stuff in the evening. Sounds good? It sure is!

Commute Greener!

Fredrik

Today I had an appointment in a city in the middle of Sweden. Since driving that far isn’t viable environmentally and isn’t as comfortable as taking the train, I of course opted for rail bound transportation. And oooooh were I in for a treat.

Trains are really good for long way transportation. It is simple, comfortable and you get access to both the internet and free electricity, allowing you to work or facebook or whatever. For long trips that is something really positive. However, the problem with trains is that when they run late, they run REALLY late. After nearly three and a half hours of broken motors, busted gear boxes and overheating systems I arrived in this lovely town I never have been to before with a healthy ten minutes to spare before the appointment. And thanks to google earth I actually knew how to get there ASAP as well as how the buildings and streets look in real life, and managed to be on time. But you know, this thought me something very valuable;

Trains ARE a very good form of transportation, but it is always good to take technical troubles into consideration. Bringing a book (the train didn’t have Internet connection) would have been a good afterthought as well, as would making sure the cellphone was loaded with cash so I could call the people I was going to meet. Buuuuut no. Not this time. Stress like that really isn’t necessary at all, and should be avoided.

Planning ones journeys are a key for making them as smooth as possible. This time I got sloppy and ended up not following any advice I usually give you guys, but for one; I HAD planned for delays. Despite this particular journey I think train beats driving in every way when it comes to longer trips. If you just prepare for the ride nothing beats a soft train seat, some good music and a good book, or in an emergency, some work. Like writing this text.  I am currently sitting on a railway station waiting for the next train to take me home.

A train also has really low CO2 emissions when compared to driving all the way. As I would have driven alone I would have emitted some 85 more grams of CO2/ kilometer, and on these distances it really adds up. Taking that into consideration it would be stupid NOT to opt for a train ride.

What I am trying to get at with these rather tired ramblings is that planning is the key when using long range public transportation. Bring as much entertainment as possible, something to drink (forgetting coffee on such a ride is unforgivable!), a bit to snack on and make sure you have lots of time to your disposal. Also make sure to know the routes, some basic knowledge can save you hours of travel time. If you are a working person and use a laptop/notebook, the train can actually be a VERY comfortable workplace as well, much better than the station house in fact (the finishing touches of this text is done while on a train).

So the next time you are having a meeting you can’t make into a teleconference in a city far(ish) away, try taking the train. It is comfortable, safe and good for the environment. Things like what happened on MY ride seldom happen, so you actually get to your destination in good shape and well rested. I do all this while emitting less CO2 then I would if I drove all the way. I am busy saving the planet right now. What are you doing?

Commute Greener! everybody!

Fredrik

One of the biggest obstacles in fighting climate change is the lack of tech to reduce carbon emissions on a large scale, right? That have been the focus in several climate debates and it is quite clear that we lack viable and economical options to make industry cleaner. Or is that really so?

Eleven of the worlds largest engineer organizations beg to differ, and aren’t afraid to do so. According to these organizations there are lots of tech solutions in energy, mechanical and several other sectors. These organizations mean that there is no lack of ideas and development but there is a great need for funding, new legislation and action from the politicians. The development is simply too slow without the right incitements towards a sustainable economy. They may actually be right on that one.

This is the bad guy! Go get 'em engineers!

This years environmental conference will be held in Durban, South Africa. The conference in Cancun last year saw a lot of locked horns, stalling and random disagreements but did actually come up with some good ideas and plans. It did lack a real commitment to carbon reductions though, something which was sorely needed. This year will most likely see more of the same. Although that isn’t the most optimistic outlook, it is probably a realistic one.

However it is important that the industry and engineering organizations are clear with the fact that they CAN and WANT to take responsibility and work for the environment. That is a clear message to the ambassadors, especially those from the larger countries, that this is doable, if very expensive and potentially time consuming. Actual action is needed and a quite aggressive strategy to reduce CO2 emissions through taxes, subsides, carbon trade and legislation will probably be needed for real results. This is in fact necessary as Climate change is already upon us.

So we have the tech needed, in working condition or in the planning/experimental stage. It should be easy to just start using it, right? Well industry can’t really act without the above mentioned economical and legal steering. While most large corporations, like Volvo Group, are working very hard to reduce emissions and become more and more “green” in the production, they still have to make a profit of their products, and reducing emissions of CO2 and other pollutants, becoming more effective etc costs A LOT. One simply can’t invest infinite sums in environmental care when the competition don’t. Laws, regulations and the economy sets the level of viable environmental improvements and decides which is the best tech to use for reducing environmental impact. At least on a simplified level, I am no environmental economist so I have probably missed something.

It is sad to think about all that could have been done for the environment but doesn’t happen because it has become an economical top political issue. I sincerely hope the leaders of the world can get together and come up with a common goal this time around and that clean production will become more and more a priority. And until then there are a lot of improvements that can be done on a smaller scale in both large and small organizations, and for private persons as well. Organizing transports so cars and trucks are always full and taking the best route, making sure the environment is an important part of future planning and working with replacing old tech with cleaner as it gets to old are all things to consider which can improve the environmental status a lot. Working with attitudes among the employees, like providing bike parking and encouraging healthy and sustainable lifestyles are other options, which can be quite cheep and actually create something of value within the company. Do I dare mention that Commute Greener! is a good tool for this? After all, our campaigns have proven successful in several situations.

While this article more or less focus on the political and corporate side of this tech issue, it actually has a great impact on private persons as well. We all have the responsibility to take some kind of action for the planet and we are getting more and more gadgets and options through tech. It is not necessary to get it all, but a there are sure to be some goodies that can make everyday a bit more sustainable, right?

Fredrik

Bike share systems are popping up everywhere nowadays. Paris got them, London got them, New York have a brand new system and so on. And Gothenburg, Sweden’s second largest city have the Styr&Ställ system (and true to its Gothenburgian origins, the name is a bad joke, not even translatable to English). The 600 blue bikes have become something of a success here. Over 17 000 accounts have been created since launch, and in a city with just over half a million people that is actually not bad. Especially since the goal was some 10 000.

One of the Styr&Ställ bike share stations. Foto Fredrik Johansson, Volvo IT Commute Greener!

Some 600 000 zero emission kilometers have been logged with these bikes, or about fifteen laps around earth. That says something for how well the system works. Not only that, but if we make a quick calculation and compare those 600 000 km to if the cyclists drove instead, they would have emitted some 0.120kg/km x 600 000 = 72 tonnes of CO2. And that is using a rather “clean” car as example. Had they have driven large cars instead it would have been some 0.240 kg/km x 600 000 = 144 tonnes of CO2…

What is interesting about the success of bike sharing is that short term accounts are very popular, meaning that lots of tourists and business people choose to experience the city by bike as well as locals. You see people dressed in shirts, ties and posh clothes in general on these bikes all the time, zipping from one office meeting to the next. This is exactly how it should be. Is it necessary to drive to meetings when the location is just a couple of blocks away? Bike share let you move quickly and freely across the city without having to look for parking or getting stuck in traffic jams. As mentioned yesterday bikes were faster, cleaner and more economical then driving or even taking the bus according the the Lindholmen Commuter Challenge. It is not like that is a surprise for anyone.

Another fun thing is that these bikes aren’t fancy in any way. They are heavy, sturdy and slow, made for quality and reliability. Nothing fancy and with a minimum of gadgets, just a basket and a signal clock. That is enough to get around on a bike. No lycra spandex or expensive gadgets needed, just hop on and peddle away.

It is a shame that the bike sharing is only available in summer, but winters here typically consists of heaps of snow and way to much rain for comfortable bike riding. On the other hand, the summer service is wonderful. Programs like this should be in every major city if nothing else to get more and more people to use active transportation. Another factor is of course environmental gains as driving causes emissions in all kinds of nasty pollutants. Less particles, less smog, less were and tear on the roads and less congestion are good points for large scale bike sharing programs. Availability of safe and cheap bikes might even trigger a behavior change towards greener commuting, something that is a good step towards a sustainable society.

/

Fredrik

Oxygen makes up about 21 %, nitrogen about 78% of the atmosphere. The last percentage consists of a whole range of trace gases such as argon and carbon dioxide. How can such a small amount, less then one % of the whole atmosphere, have such an impact on the climate? Beware people, I have some CO2 chemistry for you today!

CO2 structure. Picture from Wikipedia

CO2 is good at absorbing energy in the infrared and near infrared spectrum. It then releases some of that energy back down to earth, while some of it goes out in space again. All substances in the atmosphere behaves like this, but the problem is that it shouldn’t be so much absorption in the infrared part of the light spectra. That part should be more or less a hole. A hole which we are plugging with more and more CO2, methane, NOx and so on.

Well, that’s the very simplified version of the science anyway. But it is more difficult showing how this happens. Or how something so small can have so big impact. On my department at the university the professors explained it by using small balls with springs. Imagine the molecule on the right. The black one is carbon (C) and the red ones are oxygen (O). The sticks are electrons, two from each O connected to two from the C. This is called a double bond, which is quite inflexible and stable. If you build a model of this molecule with springs instead of sticks you will see that those springs can actually move a bit. And they do in the real molecule as well. The more energy you put in the more it moves, and the more energy it absorb for more movement the more it emit back in different frequencies later. Or something like that.

For those of you still that are awake, here comes the good part. As CO2 can absorb energy in a part of the spectrum where there used to be a lot less absorption, more will lead to energy, and in the end heat, being trapped here on earth instead of being directly reflected from the surface and out to space. Even a trace amount of this gas have such an impact. Well now we know that. Sweet! Now how do we show it so you can understand it without having studied at least high school chemistry?

Well, look at this; climateplace.org

and this Uppsalainitiativet.

The first link goes to a youtube video where a man is using ink to show how small amounts of a substance can block energy (in this case visual light). I recommend you to take a look at the video, it is rather neat. The second one is basically the same, but in a laboratory using CO2, a glass tube, an IR camera and a candle and showing how the CO2 in the tube absorbs the light. Both are excellent examples of how you can visualize CO2′s effects on the planet.

If one want to use another example of trace amounts effect on something, alcohol is an excellent example. When you have reached the legal alcohol level in the blood for driving it is actually just some ppm of ethanol in the blood stream. (DO NOT drive when you have been drinking by the way. It is dangerous for you as well for others) Arsenic is another good example, it can do a lot of damage at low levels too if it gets in the drinking water.

Right now CO2 levels are approximately 390 ppm. Compared to Oxygen or nitrogen that is a  very small amount, but with a huge impact. We don’t need it to reach over 500 ppm. Or even higher then that. Every small change we do to cut back on the emissions is one step in the right direction. Visualizing and finding ways to simplify the complex science is a very important step as well. Don’t buy the “but there is so little of it” argument. It doesn’t work. As shown here.

Fredrik

It is really nice to see that the bicycle is becoming the transportation option of choice for may commuters. Whether it is because fuel prizes are going up or because people have gotten more and more aware of the climate problems or the importance of exercise it is good that the number of cyclists are going up. I even saw an article a few days back showing how even though fuel prices are sinking again people stay with their bikes. Or buses.Which is great, both for the planet and for the people sticking with their new found zero emission alternatives.

The interest for commuter bikes and safe bike paths have in turn led to more and more cities around the world getting more bike-friendly. The more interest this alternative form of transportation get the better and safer the infrastructure get. A bicycle isn’t a car. Although you can ride on any road (well, the highway seems like a stupid and dangerous place to bike on, for a number of reasons) separate bike paths away from the rest of the traffic and surrounded by the woods or gardens is just nice. Much nicer then sharing the road with noisy cars. Having different places for the different kinds of vehicles also ups the safety. A cyclist is very vulnerable and have to be careful when in traffic. Separated lanes (and not just by some paint) make it less dangerous and less stressful to commute by bike. Let’s hope they think of this when adapting North Americas cities to this “new” kind of transportation. The possibilities for building a bike friendly environment are endless and may help making the city center greener and more comfortable to walk in as well.

With all this positive development on the biking front, this is a golden opportunity to try bike commuting. A commuter bike doesn’t have to be new or have a lot of fancy gadgets. Any old bike will do, as long as the lights, reflexes and breaks work. Safety first! It also pays of to read up on the traffic rules in the specific area as they can differ from place to place, as well as checking out the best and most comfortable rout to work. I myself advise getting a good messenger bag or a backpack and bring some spare clothes in case you get a bit sweaty. You will do yourself a favor as well as the planet.

Driving releases lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. A large car have an emission rate of about 240 g CO2/km. That means that you emit a quarter of a kilo of CO2 per kilometer. And most people have longer commutes then that (if not, why are you driving… one kilometer is easily walking distance). By taking the bike once or twice/ week you can actually save quite a lot of CO2.

Let’s make a small calculation just to illustrate the point. 240g/km. Your commute is 10 km, ie. 4800g/day (to and from work). 4800 g is 4,8 kg. In a work week, if you just drive to work that is 24 kilograms of CO2, and in a month your daily commute have emitted almost 100 kg of CO2. That is the amount of CO2 100 trees can take up during one month. Take the bike instead and you save almost 5 kilograms of CO2 each time. Talk about stepping up and doing your part for the planet.

So, let’s sum it up; the “Not being able to hop on the bike for the commute because there is no place to ride safely” argument against bike commuting is getting less viable with all the positive development, at least in some parts of the world. You save a lot of CO2 by taking the bike to work, after a year of “almost everyday bike commuting” you have saved about a ton of CO2. You save money in the process as you drive less. You also get exercise, which will lead to you being more effective at work and have more stamina. In the process your kids will learn healthy habits as well. This happens at the cost of time. But a bit of planning can solve that. So hop on that bike and let’s start saving the planet from climate change!

Remember that post last week about how the trends are turning in our habits of driving? Well it seems like even though the trends go towards not driving being cool the amount of cars in the world increase. We have now reached one billion cars in the world. China got 16,8 million cars on the roads last year and will get an increase of 30% new cars each year. In India, Bangalore alone have some 3,700,000 cars, with an increase of nearly 20% / year. This is  some truly staggering numbers and bad news for our planet.

One reason for the rapidly growing number of vehicles is of course the increase in living standard in the east. That in itself is probably a good thing, at least for those who live in those regions. However with a growing economy comes great responsibility, especially when dealing with pollution that works on an international scale. It is up to China and India to do something about their more and mor congested roads and rising pollution from traffic.

But the rest of the world still have large car fleets as well. USA is still in the top and the rest of the “west” world has giant fleets as well. The question is; do you really have to own a car to live in the west world?

Source: Kirk Anderson

Well, out on the countryside it is a given. There are not enough people to have the BRT stopping there more then perhaps once /hour, if that. In those conditions a car may be needed. But a large part of the population of any western country live in cities today. What about them?

It all depends on the city. I have spent the last six years in Gothenburg, most of that time as an university student. This is one of the most trafficked cities in Sweden. The driving culture is big here. Yet it works perfectly well to use the excellent public transportation system with buses, trams and ferries or use the many bike or walking paths to get around in a fast and somewhat comfortable. Just ask any student too poor to own a car, or the newly immigrated. It just require some planning and some preparation to get moving.

This is Gothenburg, Sweden. It is a quite good city to commute greener in. But the fact is that it is very possible in smaller cities as well. There you can often rely on the bicycle more as the public transportation isn’t as reliable but it is still viable. If that is possible in Sweden, which isn’t that much better then any other European country when it comes to logistics planning and environmental work, why not in the USA, India, China, France, England etc. You don’t have to drive to get around. It is possible to commute greener even if driving is the norm.

A car can be a great tool if you live far outside a city and have few other options for transportation. Then it is a tool and you plan the trips. But living in a city, there are no real reasons to drive as long as there is a working system of public transportation and safe bike paths. Public transportation exist in most cities. Try it out. Biking is possible almost everywhere, you just have to take responsibility in traffic and be careful.

Climate change is happening. We don’t need more cars on the roads. Cities are getting clogged up with traffic congestion which is becoming a huge problem. We all need to change our habits in many ways. In this particular change we can gain a better health as we are out moving about, save some money on gas as well as saving CO2. Isn’t that a good deal?

Fredrik