Bluestem Lake near Lincoln, Nebraska.

Bluestem Lake near Lincoln, Nebraska is five miles north of a coal-fired power plant. It is also one of 85 bodies of water in the state under a consumption advisory because of fish found to have elevated levels of mercury in their tissues. Half of the airborne mercury pollution in the US comes from coal-fired power plants. After years of study and debate, the EPA is planning to announce new limits on mercury from coal plants in November. Ken Winston of the Nebraska Sierra Club believes the agency is doing the right thing.

“When you burn coal, mercury goes up into the atmosphere,” Winston said. “It comes down in the form of rain. Fish eat it. People eat the fish. It can be very damaging and have long term negative impact on the development of children. So it’s something we need to get out of the environment as much as possible.”

The EPA says its proposed new mercury rules could reduce emissions across the country by 91%. Meanwhile, utilities are scrambling to meet other new federal regulations and industry groups are asking the government to slow down. The Nebraska Public Power District operates two coal plants. Under the proposed mercury rule Environmental Manager, Joe Citta, says the utility will need to install equipment that uses activated carbon in order to remove even more mercury than control systems already in place.

Sheldon Station coal fired power plant produces 140 pounds of mercury per year.

“The system is several million dollars,” Citta said. “But what really makes it expensive is the operating cost because activated carbon is rather pricey.”

NPPD will spend 35 million dollars to meet another new regulation reducing smog-forming pollutants that cross state lines. That rule, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), was announced in July and takes effect in January. Citta says it requires more cuts than many in the industry expected for pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).

“This caught our state, many other states also,” Citta said. When the final rule came out they had reduced those by an additional 40%. Then with only 6 months to comply…We felt the proposed rule was manageable. We would have had to do some things. But they were certainly more achievable than this additional 40% reduction.”

Nebraska utilities feeling rushed by regulation are hoping to get some extra time. The Nebraska Attorney General’s office is working on a lawsuit against the interstate smog rule that a spokesperson says would protect utilities and consumers from costly federal overreach. A bill in the House of Representatives could slow things down by commissioning a study on the economic impact of the EPA’s emissions agenda. Steve Gates of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy says it is a reaction to a lot of regulation in a short period of time.

“In a state like Nebraska where 65% of our electricity comes from coal, something is going to happen and the guess is electricity prices go up immediately,” Gates said. “You know, there’s just a lot of economic implications that really should be looked at before we jump into something that no one knows the outcome economically.”

Nebraska rails are a major thoroughfare from Wyoming to power plants in the Midwest and southern Plains. Gates says the state’s economic ties to coal show the advantage of having easy access to inexpensive energy.

“We’re fortunate enough to be in the top ten lowest states for electricity in the country,” Gates said. “What we need to do is find a balance between reducing emissions the best we can while also keeping an eye on what we’re going to do to local economies if we enact something too quickly.”

The EPA claims that the mercury rule will have a positive economic impact in the end by providing health savings of up to $140 billion from reduced asthma, heart disease and other serious ailments. Gates says the EPA underestimates the cumulative impact of multiple rules all coming down at once, particularly in a bad economy. The Sierra Club’s Ken Winston believes power companies are capable of covering costs that they have not paid in the past.

“They can absorb the cost of making these changes much more easily than a person can,” Winston said. “An individual whose child doesn’t develop appropriately because they’ve had mercury poisoning, that’s a life that’s destroyed and we can’t tolerate that.”

Additional Links

• Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
• EPA mercury rule
• Nebraska Sierra Club
• Sierra Club – Beyond Coal
• Fish consumption advisories page
• Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
• Houtson Chronicle – Texas sues EPA to block new pollution rule
• Nebraska AG lawsuit story
• Washington Post – White House threatens veto of House bill to delay EPA pollution rules
• The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)

How can California cattle ranches pull carbon out of the atmosphere? Photo courtesy of Becca Ryals.

What if we could pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it underground? Well, plants do this every day—through photosynthesis. Plants take CO2 from the air and incorporate it into their tissues. When their leaves drop to the ground, or bits of their roots slough off, or they die and decompose, the carbon from the plants’ tissues goes into the soil. Researchers from UC Berkeley are working with cattle ranchers in Marin County to figure out how to increase the amount of carbon stored in the soil. I spoke to Berkeley grad student Becca Ryals to learn more about the Marin Carbon Project.

Becca and other students in her advisor Whendee Silver’s lab, in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management at Berkeley, had been studying the effects of climate change on the carbon in soil. They were taking soil samples from California’s rangelands to see how much carbon is stored—or sequestered—in the soil, and why carbon storage varies so much from place to place. The cattle ranchers, on whose land the researchers were working, wanted to know how their land management practices could increase carbon sequestration in their soils. The ranchers’ questions were the catalyst for the next step in Becca and her colleagues’ research.

They did an experiment to see whether adding compost affects the amount of carbon stored in the soil. They set up a study in 2008 in two places—Nicasio Ranch, in Marin county, and the Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center in the Sierra Valley. At each site, in some areas they added a half-inch thick layer of commercially available compost, made from yard waste and food scraps, to the soil. In other areas, they left the soil alone.

Compost is added to the soil at a cattle ranch, part of the Marin Carbon Project. Photo courtesy of Becca Ryals.

When they returned to the plots a few months later, they found that the plots with compost had a 50-70% increase in grass production. The compost had fertilized the grass and increased its growth. The ranchers were happy to see the increase in grass production—there was more forage for their cattle.

The boxed areas were treated with a ½ inch layer of compost; the grass there grew thicker for 3 years after the compost was added. Photo courtesy of Becca Ryals.

Becca and her colleagues expected that after a year, the effect of the compost would have worn off. They were wrong. When they went back the next year, the grass production was still up 50-70%. They went back three years after the compost was added, and they could still see its effects—grass production was still up by 50-70%. The compost acted as a slow-release fertilizer. They’re continuing to monitor the plots: for how long will the compost added in 2008 continue to benefit the grass, the soil, and the ranchers?

Becca and her colleagues took multiple soil samples from the different plots, and found that in the compost-treated plots the amount of carbon in the soil had increased by about 20%. This is a huge increase in the world of soil carbon. Some of this carbon comes directly from the compost, and some is there because of the increase in grass production—grass dies and the carbon from its tissues enters the soil.

Marcia DeLonge, a post-doc in Becca’s lab, is looking at whether the type of compost matters. She’s comparing the effects of yard waste/food scrap compost and compost made from cow manure—which is readily available at her field sites, three dairies in Marin County. Their work has become well known to local ranchers, and they received offers from so many ranchers to do the study on their land that they had difficulty choosing their field sites.

The Marin Carbon Project is starting to talk with ranchers and local agencies about a carbon market—using the researchers’ findings, they can monitor the amount of carbon in the soil, and ranchers can be rewarded for the carbon sequestered on their property.

Becca, Whendee, and her lab-mates share their research findings with ranchers through presentations at public venues. The ranchers ask them questions, and the researchers figure out how they can answer them, by designing new studies and asking more questions.

Becca enjoys the science: “There are interesting, challenging questions,” she says. But “I really like working with the ranchers and seeing the research findings applied to everyday land management decisions.”

Her work also gives her an appreciation for local food. “When I see Point Reyes Blue Cheese,” Becca says, “I know that rancher. I saw those soils.”

Picking up local produce at the farmers’ market—that’s my kind of New Year’s resolution. Photo: Mazarine.

1. Go on an energy diet
A few years ago, I read an article in the New York Times in which the author tries to cut his annual CO₂ emissions by half a ton—roughly five percent of his yearly carbon “weight.” He makes several easy changes, all of which he accomplishes in under 8 hours. For example, he turns down the thermostat, washes his clothes in cold water, asks retailers to stop sending him catalogs, and swaps out some incandescent bulbs for C.F.L.s. He overshoots his goal of half a ton of CO₂, with minimal effort. This article has really stuck in my mind, because these changes are so easy to make. I’m going to revisit this article, The Energy Diet, and cut some carbon from my waistline.

2. Track my energy usage—and respond accordingly
PG&E just installed a SmartMeter at my home. Once it’s connected to the network (it will take a few months), I’ll be able to track my hourly energy usage. I want to do little experiments to figure out which of my appliances are energetically expensive. I’ll be able to see how much energy I save by turning off my computer at night, rather than putting it to sleep. I can swap out light bulbs and see if the savings are significant. I’m looking forward to doing nerdy energy experiments and seeing my energy usage drop! All PG&E customers should have a SmartMeter by mid-2012. To learn more about SmartMeters, check PG&E’s website, and watch QUEST’s Climate Watch: Unlocking the Grid. And for some of the controversy about SmartMeters, take a look at this post on the Climate Watch blog.

3. Eat local
As food is transported across the country (or across the globe), CO₂ is emitted. These food miles can really rack up. This year, I want to buy more food from local farms at my neighborhood farmers’ market. I might even add a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) box to the mix. This resolution has a few great by-products: supporting the local economy, spending fun mornings at the farmers’ market with friends, and eating many tasty meals.

4. Get more informed about the environment
I read the newspaper, and I peruse a handful of blogs; my favorites are Climate Watch, Dot Earth, Green, and treehugger. But I can always read more! What are your favorite sources for environmental news and commentary?

5. Get outside
This resolution has nothing to do with reducing my carbon footprint. I just want to breathe some fresh air and enjoy the outdoors. I’ll ride my bike, hike some new trails, and eat my lunch outside when it’s sunny. After all this work to preserve the environment—I might as well enjoy it.

37.8793 -122.245

Amazing what foods you can find in your own– and your neighbor's– backyard. Photo credit: Iso Rabins of ForageSF

Considering that I work from home, don't fly very often, and walk or take mass transit most places, I bet Michael Pollan is especially right for me. Last June, QUEST had a radio piece on a low carbon diet with tips to lower your CO2 impact, but my inner scientist needs some data. That's when I found the Carbon Foodprint Calculator.

Here's what I ate yesterday:

• Cereal with Milk
• Small Salad
• Chicken Sandwich
• 3 Diet Cokes
• Beer
• Apple, Banana, and some strawberries

My wife usually nags me about my diet, but I think I did pretty well yesterday! (excepting those diet cokes) My carbon foodprint was 2641 CO₂e points. Each point represents 1 gram of CO₂e equivalent or in my case 5.8 lbs of CO₂e. Now this is calculator certainly has limitations (mentioned in their FAQ section), but it is a satisfying comparison study. The site claims that most Americans have room to cut their carbon foodprint 25%. Not easily done, but luckily we have help in the Bay Area.

This weekend, Iso Rabins, founder of ForageSF, is taking an intrepid crew out to learn about foraged foods (virtually zero in carbon foodprint if foraged locally). He'll teach you how to identify wild edibles all around you, from wild fennel to mallow to nettle. Many of the plants we see everyday can be consumed on the spot (although better after a quick rinse). After taking a collecting walk, he'll cook up some snacks that includes some of what was foraged.

On Monday, Chef Laura Stec and climatologist Eugene Cordero cook up some Cool Cuisine, with a discussion of their new cookbook focusing on low carbon recipes. Cordero presents research on the energy efficiency of our food system and the relationship to our changing climate and then Chef Laura provides some practical cooking tips for low carbon foods without sacrificing flavor. For those who can't make the event, you can watch their presentation last month at the PARC Forum.

Guided Foraging Tour with ForageSF & TransportedSF

When: Sunday, August 9^th 12 PM – 7 PM

Where: Meet at Papa Toby's Revolution Café, 3248 22nd St, SF

Cost: $35, Tickets

Environmental Action through Eating: Best Bang for the Buck

When: Monday, August 10^th 6 PM – 730 PM

Where: Commonwealth Club, 595 Market St, 2^nd Floor, SF

Cost: $8 members, $15 non-members, Tickets

37.7553926 -122.4198588

The students are given a small book of action coupons to take home that recommend tips such as powering down home electronics that use energy when officially "off" but are still in standby mode by unplugging the device or turning off the power at a power strip. Students can earn rewards in the form of prize cards featuring Wasteful Wendy, Rennie Reusable and other characters, for actions such as getting their families to eat one pound less of beef in a week, thereby saving 130,000 gallons of water (the water to grow the crops to feed the cattle, and so on.)

Monthly highlights focus on a particular action, and an Action Banner tracks the progress of the whole school, charting the amount of energy saved and the amount of greenhouse gases avoided. School teachers can go online to access materials, get advice from the staff of Cool the Earth, or just brag about how their school is doing.

The program is working because it employs an age-old motivational strategy– get to the parents through their kids. And the results are tangible. The program so far can account for more than 25 million pounds of carbon emissions avoided. There are 149 schools involved in the program so far, and there is a waiting list for participation. Almost 23,000 students are involved– translating into many more thousands of parents, brothers, and sisters.

37.8686 -122.267

A carbon-tracking cell phone. Credit: Nokia

Not exactly the environmentally-conscious line of thinking that organizers were hoping for, but understandable for those high-schoolers holding a brand new, latest version of the Nokia in their hands.

The way the San Francisco pilot program works is like this: students get a mobile phone equipped with a GPS maps application. They fill out a profile with the make and model of the cars they use. The cell phone monitors movement, so it picks up when that student is making a car trip. The server factors in the time of day, the weather and humidity, and the type of car the student is riding in – and then calculates the amount of carbon output that trip represents.

The program currently doesn't differentiate between cars and other forms of transportation – bikes, ferries, trains, carpools, buses – so students may need to note when those trips were not regular car trips. The final number is their carbon rating.

When the program expands to three other San Francisco schools at the end of March 2009, a competition will be formed between the high schools to see which group of 25 students can cut back the most on their car trips and carbon output.

That will help answer the question of how much pollution people can save just by altering transportation behavior. And hopefully, the participants here are young enough that those transportation choices might continue after the program has ended. Once they get used to walking or biking, for instance, maybe they'll make that a regular form of transportation.

That, of course, doesn't ameliorate the answer to the other burning question – that, yes, the cool phone goes away when the pilot program ends.

Listen to the Tracking Carbon through Your Cell Phone radio report online.

37.77074 -122.4463

The Truckee River Canyon. Credit: Michael Conner.

Natural capital isn't something we hear about very often, and it certainly isn't a new idea. Aldo Leopold and other conservationists recognized the role that natural ecosystems play in our lives as early as the 1940's. But understanding and measuring that role hasn't been easy. That's where the Natural Capital Project comes in.

The project focuses on ecosystem services – the natural processes that ecosystems provide and humans benefit from. Those include how forests filter our drinking water, how wetlands provide protection from storm surges, and how bees and other pollinators support our agricultural industry. While these services may not be the first thing you think of when it comes to nature, researchers are discovering that they're vital to human health and decision makers are starting to factor that it.

A few examples:

In the 1990's, New York City's water quality dropped below EPA standards. The obvious option was to built a new water filtration plant – with a hefty price tag: $6-8 billion for construction and $300 million in yearly operating expenses. Instead, the city decided to invest in the natural processes that help keep water clean. That meant looking upstream to the Catskills watershed where intact ecosystems could help filter the water. The city bought land upstream and improved sewer treatment plants – all at a much lower price: $1-1.5 billion.

In China, the Yangtze River Basin experienced devastating floods in 1998. Many believed the vast deforestation of the surrounding area had been the major cause, since it had eliminated the natural buffer that existed. Since then, the Chinese Government has adopted a system of ecosystem payments – giving subsidies to farmers to plant trees and preserve forested areas.  All in all, their program in budgeted in the billions.

The Natural Capital project has created an online tool known as InVEST that's freely available to the public. It allows users to map ecosystem services in any landscape. The project's co-found Gretchen Daily is hopeful that the tool will make it much easier for natural capital to be part of land use decision-making – especially in countries where development pressures are strong. "It's stunning to see how rapidly things are changing globally. We're losing trillions of dollars of value in natural capital in the form of rain forests and other key natural assets" Daily said. The project is already working with the government of Colombia to use InVEST and to improve their resource permitting process. You can read more about where else they're working here.

Listen to the Putting a Price on Nature radio report online.

37.42949 -122.167059

Multi-trunk Magnolia sucks carbon.
Photo: Jim Gunshinan

I feel good that those new trees are sucking carbon out of the air as we speak. But a recent talk at Berkeley Labs, where Home Energy's offices are located, made me think much bigger. Vinod Khosla is the founder of Khosla Ventures and earned his chops as the founding Chief Executive Officer of Sun Microsystems. Khosla Ventures exists to “assist great entrepreneurs determined to build companies with lasting significance."

Khosla, a tall, thin, 60-ish, short-grey-haired man who looks like he runs marathons, threw out some questions on a big screen to get us all interested. “What if more coal plants meant cleaner air? What if more driving meant less carbon? What if a million year crude oil production cycle were reduced to hours? What if engines were twice as efficient, cutting world oil consumption in half?" There are companies supported by Khosla Ventures that are making progress on those “what-ifs." For example, a company called Pax Streamline is working on turbine designs inspired by natural forms that will significantly increase the efficiency of wind turbines, power plants, and HVAC systems.

Living Homes is creating cheap, prefabricated, highly resource efficient and really swell looking homes. Khosla talked about making flue gases from coal-fired power plants into cement or fertilizer (that's how coal plants will someday clean the air).

The title of Khosla's talk was “Extrapolating the past or Inventing the Future." He thinks we need quantum leap changes in the way we design car engines, the fuel we use; how we manufacture cement, steel, and glass; and the way we build buildings. He spiced his talked with phrases such as “80% more efficient," “3- or 4-fold increase in storage capacity," and “100 miles per gallon diesel."

This radical way of thinking and imagining is more possible given 1) the Obama administration coming to Washington, 2) the cost in treasure and lives for our fossil fuel dependency, and 3) the crash in the financial sector and the stock market. The same old way of doings things (think incremental steps and short-term gain) isn't working anymore. Except for tree planting. That's always good, even if having a small effect on planetary atmosphere. And I like figs.

(Go here for a video of Khosla's talk. Then go plant a tree and invent the future.)

37.8686 -122.267

Since the CSA only buys whole animals, members get a few interesting things in each delivery. As Adler says, not every cut on an animal is a grill-able cut. Some cuts require other cooking techniques, and so members are challenged to do braises and stews with what they get. The idea is to create a new market for many of the local, small-scale producers. And Adler says she's been getting phone calls from many others looking to join.

Adler has decided the CSA will take the summer off, so she can work on restructuring it into a more cooperative model. As she says, one of the goals of the CSA is for consumers to connect with their producers and she's hoping the CSA's structure can reflect that. The good news is a number of other meat CSA's have arrived on the scene in the Bay Area for those of you looking to join one. Those are:

• The Clark Summit Meat Club
• Sonoma County Meat Buying Club
• Marin Sun Farms
• And here's a list of meat CSA's nationwide

As I also discovered in this story, eating a low-carbon diet is not simple. Researchers are just starting to get a handle on the methodology used to do a life cycle analysis for food. And the news isn't good for meat and cheese lovers – it turns out red meat and dairy products have the highest carbon footprints. The further you dive into their life cycle, the more complicated it gets. Luckily, Gail Feenstra of UC Davis's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program has a few simple tips to cut your carbon.

• Eat less red meat and dairy
• Avoid foods grown in heated greenhouses by eating seasonal food
• Avoid food transported by air by eating locally
• Consolidate your shopping into as few trips as possible
• Waste less food. If it goes into a landfill, it emits the same gases as cows

You can get a sense of the footprint of your diet through the Bon Appetit Management Company's Eat Low Carbon Calculator or you can look up a local farmer's market with Local Harvest.

You may listen to "Eating a Low Carbon Diet" report online, as well as find additional links and resources.

37.882 -122.269

The 2006 Word of the Year was "carbon netural" in the The New Oxford English Dictionary. But there's still a lot of debate about what it means. Many people compare the U.S. carbon offset market to the Wild West. Since there is no regulation, how do you know what you're buying?

There are several guides to carbon offsets that have been created by non-profit organizations, designed to help the average consumer (see related resources). But part of the problem is that many people are still debating what a carbon offset should be. And that's a debate that can be found in the blogosphere.

One place you can find it is on the Grist.org blog which has many bloggers writing about green issues. Forestry offset projects, which sell credits based on the fact that trees sequester– or hold carbon dioxide, have come under fire. You can read about a few of the critiques here, here and here.

Another blog, Treehugger.com, has followed the issue as well. They posted this comparison of offset providers to help their readers do their homework and this more in depth guide on the issues buyers should be aware of.

Of course, one of the earliest debates over offsets was whether offsets would act as "indulgences", distracting consumers from making concrete changes in their lifestyles to reduce their carbon footprint. Terrapass, one offset retailer, has tried to investigate this by surveying their customers. They found that the majority of them had already had green habits. Still, the virtues of offsets are a matter of personal opinion.

You may listen to the "Cashing in on Carbon" radio report online, as well as find additional links and resources.

Lauren Sommer is an Associate Media Producer for QUEST.

latitude: 37.325510, longitude: -120.640341

37.850783 -122.294830