Boulderganic Today

Welcome to the new Boulderganic.com, Boulder County’s guide to living green, supporting local choices and creating a sustainable future.

Here, you’ll find fresh content, meaning you no longer have to wait for our Spring, Summer and Fall editions to hit newsstands. We also have a daily blog, slideshows and lists of local resources.

Things we’ll be adding in the near future include a map of Boulderganic newsstand locations, more local resources and content from past editions.

To read our Fall 2009 issue, click here. Our Summer 2009 issue is now available here.

Looking for a way to contact us? Look no further! Click here.

For a list of our most recent blog posts, scroll down.

Feb 04 2010

America’s hunger for gasoline falls and is unlikely to return

Published by Boulderganic under News, Sustainability

By Steve Everly

McClatchy Newspapers (MCT)

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The United States used more gasoline than ever in 2007 and far more than any other country. It seemed as if America’s growing appetite for gas would go on forever.

Well, it won’t — and things may never be the same.

Gasoline consumption has been down the last two years, in part because of the recession. Even when the economy picks up, three underlying trends mean the United States might never use as much gas again:

—New standards for cars and light trucks, including SUVs, will make U.S. vehicles more fuel-efficient.

—The growth in the number of U.S. vehicles, after surging the last 30 years, is likely to plateau. The country now has more than four vehicles for every five people, including children.

—Alternative fuels will grow enough to cover increased fuel needs.

As a result, the federal Energy Information Administration predicts that 2007 was the peak year for U.S. gasoline demand. Even in 2035, the last year of the latest long-term projections, motorists are expected to use less gasoline than they are now.

As unexpected as this trend was, there is widespread agreement that it is right.

“We’re on a slow but inexorable path away from petroleum. This is a big deal,” said James Williams, an analyst with WTRG Economics, an oil and gas consultancy.

In a recent speech in Washington, Rex Tillerson agreed.

“Motor vehicle gasoline demand is down, is headed down and is going to continue to head down,” said Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest oil company.

That decline is reverberating through the oil industry. Refineries now use only 78.5 percent of their capacity, the lowest level since the federal government began routinely collecting the information in 1990. Valero Energy, which once bought refineries enthusiastically, now snaps up ethanol plants instead.

And Chevron Corp. recently announced it was reorganizing its U.S. refining business, which could include selling or closing refineries.

One variable will be how quickly consumers take to alternatives and more-efficient vehicles.

When the new fuel-economy standards were being considered, a Gallup poll found 80 percent of respondents supported the idea, even though it could make vehicles smaller and more expensive. A Pew Research Center poll released last week found only 49 percent of respondents said they favored making energy a top priority, down from 60 percent a year ago.

Mike Omotoso, an analyst for the marketing firm J.D. Power & Associates, said many consumers are reluctant to pay more for alternatives such as electric hybrids, especially when gas costs less than $3 a gallon.

“People can have short memories,” Omotoso said.

Other analysts say $4 gasoline left a lasting impression. Mike Right, a spokesman for AAA, said consumers understand things have changed and higher energy prices weren’t a temporary situation.

“Everyone knows the era of $2 gas is over,” he said.

Paul Gilbert, a former area resident who is now retired in southern Missouri, makes regular trips to Kansas City in his pickup truck — trips that became especially pricey when gas prices spiked in 2008. Though gas prices have settled, Gilbert said they’re still too high, and he plans to buy a Honda Accord or Toyota Corolla.

“You either do what is right or keep on going down the path we’re going down,” he said. “People are starting to wise up.”

Americans have tried this before. In the 1970s after the OPEC oil embargo, the government imposed fuel-efficiency standards and other measures to slash fuel and oil consumption. The effort eventually was undone by plummeting oil prices and the popularity of thirsty SUVs.

The experience left a lesson that is playing out again. Forward-looking policies require patience and can be difficult politically, but they pay off, said Jay Hakes, a former head of the Energy Information Administration and the author of “A Declaration of Energy Independence.”

“It’s a gradual thing,” Hakes said. “The really good policies are the ones that look five to 10 years ahead.”

A similar approach is showing results. Federal tax incentives for ethanol, though widely criticized, have helped increase production from less than 1 billion gallons in 1992 to 10.5 billion last year. That reduces by 5 percent the amount of gas the country needs.

The new fuel-efficiency standards won’t be fully felt for years.

Congress approved the measure in 2007, and the Obama administration toughened it by saying the standard must be fully in force by 2016 instead of 2020. Fuel efficiency must start climbing in the 2011 model year, and by 2016, cars are to average 39 miles per gallon and light trucks, including SUVs, must average 30 miles per gallon. The current requirements are 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 for light trucks.

How much fuel will that save? The 2011 models, according to federal estimates, will save 900 million gallons over their lifetimes. That’s not bad, but it amounts to only a day’s worth of U.S. oil consumption.

By 2016, the results are more impressive. All the vehicles produced under the new standards are expected to save 76 billion gallons of gas. That impact will build for a few more years, because it takes about 20 years to completely replace the nation’s vehicles.

Meanwhile, a decline in the number of vehicles owned by U.S. households will have an impact. From 1980 to 2007, 100 million vehicles were registered in the U.S., giving the country 844 vehicles for every 1,000 people. As a result, car travel nearly doubled to 3 trillion miles a year.

Last year, the number of vehicles in the U.S. dipped slightly, J.D. Power said, and just slowing the growth in vehicles should help prevent a surge in gasoline demand.

All of that doesn’t mean gasoline will stay cheap, because growing demand in countries such as China and India eventually will send prices back up.

And it doesn’t mean gas will disappear. The Energy Information Administration predicts that by 2035, petroleum still will provide 88 percent of the fuel for cars and light trucks.

The rest will come from alternative fuels — mainly ethanol, followed by electricity, natural gas, hydrogen and propane. Many analysts say alternatives will grow much faster than federal officials expect. That will depend in part on developing infrastructure such as stations to charge electric cars or dispense compressed natural gas.

Several alternate fuels could enjoy some growth, said Mary Beth Stanek, the director of environment, energy and safety policy for General Motors Corp. GM expects hydrogen to play a bigger role and has a second generation of hydrogen cars in the field.

However quickly alternatives are adopted, they mean less gasoline use — and a reshuffling of past expectations.

In 2005, the chief executive of the largest independent U.S. refining company, Valero, declared a “Golden Age of refining” and said the best was yet to come. Less than five years later, Valero has a new CEO — who says that age is over.

When Valero spokesman Bill Day was asked last week whether his company agreed that demand for gas will drop, he put it this way:

“It makes sense to us.”

———

(c) 2010, The Kansas City Star.

Visit The Star Web edition on the World Wide Web at http://www.kcstar.com

No responses yet

Feb 03 2010

Warming temperatures put chill on future of CO ski areas

Published by Boulderganic under News, Uncategorized

Colorado News Connection

Eric Mack

DENVER – You might not know it from the major winter storms that have hit parts of the Rockies this winter, but Colorado’s winter tourism industry is under threat. A new report from the National Wildlife Federation says global warming is part of the reason for the unusual winter weather in the West. Climate scientist and report author Dr. Amanda Staudt says powder enthusiasts should be especially concerned.

“Aspen Mountain could see a 2400-foot rise in the snow line, which is as far as the snowpack extends down the mountain. And if that happens, many of the base areas at that mountain won’t even have any snow.”

Explanations for wacky weather can get complicated. A report in the journal Science this week explains that water vapor in the atmosphere plays a role in global warming. It may intensify, or sometimes moderate, the heating effects of carbon pollution. Staudt says El Nino is another factor scientists are investigating.

“If you go back and look at the data over the last century, we haven’t seen any trend in our El Ninos, we haven’t seen a big change in them. Right now, the science is out on that question and it’s an area where people are actively looking.”

Her report, “Oddball Winter Weather: Global Warming’s Wake-Up Call for the Northern United States,” is online at www.nwf.org. Staudt says the analysis of weather trends underscores the importance of cutting carbon pollution that has been connected to warmer global temperatures. According to NASA, 2009 is the second warmest year on record for the world.

No responses yet

Jan 29 2010

Copenhagen’s moment of truth

Published by Boulderganic under Uncategorized

By Jonathan Lash

The Los Angeles Times

On Sunday, we will learn if world leaders meant what they said when they agreed last month to act collectively to stabilize Earth’s overheating climate.

Having failed to complete a legally binding agreement at the chaotic Copenhagen summit, world leaders instead endorsed what they said would be a “politically binding” agreement — the Copenhagen accord — that calls on countries to submit national targets and action plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The plans are due by Sunday, and without them, the accord is a hollow symbol.

Defections by major developed or developing countries would doom, in its infancy, the three-page political agreement cobbled together in the Danish capital.

The accord is far from perfect. It will not in itself rescue humankind from dangerous and unpredictable levels of warming. But it provides a solid platform to do so, and the way it came about suggests a new model for global leadership, one that broke through the stalemated U.N. climate negotiations of recent years.

The deal was struck in face-to-face negotiations between President Obama and the leaders of four emerging world giants: China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Disagreements between the four developing nations and the U.S. had deadlocked negotiations among a larger group of leaders from 27 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. The compromise hammered out by the five leaders was ultimately accepted by almost 190 nations after a marathon all-night session. Only a small group of countries — including Sudan, Cuba, Tuvalu, Bolivia, and Venezuela — opposed the agreement.

The accord included three elements essential to reversing the dangerous buildup of global warming pollution in the atmosphere.

First, the group set a long-term goal of holding the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Centigrade, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (so far, temperatures have risen about 0.8 degrees Centigrade, or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit). Second, all big emitters — not just the developed countries of the north — agreed to control global warming pollution in their countries. Third, the countries in the accord agreed to regular reporting and review of progress on their commitments.

The “Copenhagen Five” — the group of leaders whose compromise made the accord possible — is very different than the small group of wealthy northern nations that have steered global economic policy since World War II. Only the U.S. is part of both groups. Collectively, the five represent 45 percent of the world’s population and 44 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Whether the “politically binding” accord is ultimately workable will depend on a variety of factors. It will require political will among a broader group of nations. Yes, it depends on China, India, Brazil and South Africa. But it also depends on the nations of the European Union, traditional leaders on climate action, to provide leadership in implementing the accord. It will require nations to stand by their Copenhagen pledges. (The U.S. pledge, delivered in person by Obama, is for a 17 percent cut in domestic emissions from 2005 levels by 2020.) And it will need countries such as Japan, Australia and Indonesia to follow through and register their commitments.

Which brings us back to Sunday’s all-important deadline.

As I write this, the signs are encouraging that the great majority of nations — including those that matter most — will “associate” themselves with the accord, as required, and register pledges. Two of the Copenhagen Five — Brazil and South Africa — are already signatories. The United States is expected to register its plan before the deadline, reiterating its Copenhagen pledge. And China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, and India have said publicly they will sign up and make commitments. Given that, less than a year ago, these same countries were vociferously arguing that the industrialized world must bear the entire emissions-reduction burden, this is grounds for optimism.

China, in particular, has strongly signaled that it intends to green its massive, polluting economy. Last month, with the dust barely settled on the Copenhagen summit, it adopted new measures requiring electric utilities to purchase wind and solar energy.

In addition, the European Union has signaled that it will stand by the accord, and Australia, Canada and South Korea have already “associated” themselves.

The biggest single question hanging over the fate of both the Copenhagen accord and continuing U.N. climate negotiations is whether the U.S. will take the steps required to reduce pollution and join the fierce global competition to sell tomorrow’s low-carbon technologies. The willingness of China, India, Brazil and South Africa to break with the past and commit to controlling emissions signals not only a concern with the effects of global warming on their populations, but a realization that they need to adopt clean-energy policies to compete. They have come to see low-carbon development not as a threat but an opportunity.

In the wake of the Massachusetts Senate election, however, it is not so clear how the U.S. will proceed.

Though the House has passed a comprehensive clean-energy and climate-protection bill, Senate leaders are struggling to find 60 votes for effective legislation. A bipartisan group is working to craft compromise legislation emphasizing energy security and jobs. Such an approach — laying out a road map for green jobs, energy security and pollution reduction — makes sense for the U.S. economy and would give life to the Copenhagen accord.

The mood in Washington is grim and partisan, but I firmly believe that Congress can rise to the challenge of effective climate legislation. A solid majority of Americans continues to support clean energy and reducing global warming pollution. I hope their views prevail.

———

ABOUT THE WRITER

Jonathan Lash is president of the World Resources Institute (www.wri.org) in Washington. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

———

(c) 2010, Los Angeles Times.

Visit the Los Angeles Times on the Internet at http://www.latimes.com/

No responses yet

Jan 26 2010

Clean line of products from Martha Stewart

Published by Boulderganic under News

By Jamie Knodel

Martha Stewart is coming clean, and she wants other housekeepers to do the same.

The queen of good things has unveiled a cleaning line of things good for the Earth — and your home.

Clean offers everything from dish detergent to toilet-bowl cleaner and hand soap to carpet-stain remover. The products are made from 99 percent plant- and mineral-based ingredients. There are no added fragrances or artificial colors. And all 10 products come in recyclable packaging.

Clean has even been recognized by the EPA, which gave the line a Design for the Environment award.

The products, which start at $3.99, are available at Home Depot and Amazon.com.

———

(c) 2010, The Dallas Morning News.

Visit The Dallas Morning News on the World Wide Web at http://www.dallasnews.com/

No responses yet

Jan 25 2010

Do your part: Green travel

Published by Boulderganic under News, Sustainability

McClatchy Newspapers (MCT)

Terri Bennett

Planning a getaway? Now is a good time to lock in the dates and destination for any travel plans this year. But planning a vacation is not the time to forget how to lessen your impact on our planet. Deciding where to go, where to stay, how to get there, and what to bring all provide opportunities to make smarter choices.

PICK THE PERFECT PLACE: Whether you decide to visit an environmentally sustainable winery in Napa Valley or check into a green certified ski lodge in Utah — the choices for eco-friendly destinations are endless. You can seek out spots that appeal to you and your family on websites like EcoTrotters.com. Or, tour companies like Intrepid Travel specifically coordinate eco-friendly excursions across the country. Don’t forget the ultimate eco-destinations in America — our National Parks! There is one in nearly every state and are home to awe-inspiring views, free roaming wildlife, and endless things for the nature lover to do. Plus, they won’t bust your budget!

STAY SMART: It’s all the rage these days to go green and many hotels are either being built with the Earth in mind or are making retrofits which will conserve energy and water. Some hotel restaurants even feature all-organic menus. To find exactly what you’re looking for, check out IStayGreen.org and EnvironmentallyFriendlyHotels.com. AAA also features green, eco-icons in their guidebooks that highlight hotels which are making eco-friendly strides.

GETTING THERE IS HALF THE FUN: It isn’t just where you go and where you stay; it’s also important how you get there. But, who really has the time to sift through mounds of research to figure out if flying, driving, or traveling by train is better for the planet? TripFootprint.com does the hard part for you. Enter in where you’re headed, with how many people, and it’ll scientifically determine which way will generate the smallest amount of pollution. Another option for those who may not have the most fuel-efficient ride is to park it and rent a hybrid. It cuts down on the wear and tear of your own car and you’ll be creating fewer emissions on your trip.

A BETTER BAG: The best choice for luggage is to use the bags and suitcases you already have. But, if you need some new pieces there are plenty of eco-friendly options that are just a click away! Websites such as Luggage.com have wide selections of eco-friendly luggage made by Patagonia, Eco-Traveler, Mountainsmith and more. Many are made with recycled materials or renewable resources and they are available in every price range.

There are many decisions to be made when planning your next vacation. Do Your Part to make your getaways good for you and our planet.

———

(Terri Bennett is an Earth scientist, syndicated columnist and mom; www.DoYourPart.com.)

———

(c) 2010, The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, N.C.).

Visit The Charlotte Observer on the World Wide Web at http://www.charlotteobserver.com/

No responses yet

Next »