I’ve come across 2 different sites today which help drive the point home for me that lots of individual actions or behaviors really add up.

First see this short video on YouTube which shows the amount of Global Air Traffic in a 24 hour period. It is amazing to see!

Secondly, to help understand how much energy our chosen lifestyles consume and to help understand the math behind some of these behaviors, David MacKay, a professor of physics at the University of Cambridge recently published a very enlightening book called, “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air.” Also see: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html. This book offers a very accessible, must-read analysis, for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of these issues.

More than 60% of the world’s population now live in urban environments. This figure is likely to grow to 80% by the year 2050. Many of us, who live in urban environments, take it for granted that we will continue to enjoy the large variety and plentiful quantities of fresh vegetables and fruits that we are able to pick up and put in our shopping carts in our local urban supermarkets, without thinking about the amounts of energy required to get them there. Also, by the year 2050, there may be another 3 billion people demanding these foods.

It is doubtful that there will be enough arable land to support these people, since we already have put 80% of all available arable land on the planet to use, and we seem to be good at reducing large amounts of such land to waste, through poor agricultural practices. The trend towards global warming won’t make the prospect for being able to grow more food any better. Global warming may make deserts out of what is now arable land, as annual rainfall patterns shift, and available fresh water supplies diminish. Current commercial agricultural methods and supply patterns also may not be sustainable.

It has been estimated that one fifth of all the fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. go into agriculture, both for producing the food (e.g., tractors, plows), synthesizing fertilizer (e.g., using hydrogen extracted from natural gas to produce nitrate fertilizers), and then transporting the food to far distant locations where they are consumed. In the U.S., we enjoy fresh produce in wintertime from Florida and California, as well as from Chile and other South American countries, who have their Summer while we slog through the ice and snow of Winter. Can we continue to enjoy these luxuries?

Another thing that many people may not realize is that the fresh produce we now consume may not even be as nutritious and safe as that which was produced in the past. Today’s commercial methods of growing and the varieties of crops grown optimize profitability by limiting losses from spoilage and transportation stress, at the expense of taste and nutrition. Our veggies simply may not be pulling as many minerals out of depleted soils as they used to, and the recent outbreaks of illness due to e-coli contamination shed doubt on our abilities to keep our food supplies safe, especially where manure is used to fertilize. An answer to the declining quality of fresh produce, and the increasing costs of growing and transporting it to urban population centers, is to produce the food right inside those urban areas, through what has been termed vertical farming. This would save energy otherwise needed to transport the food, and would make it easier to ensure the safety and quality of the food.

Vertical farming is the production of food in large multi-level urban buildings, through the use of hydroponics – or, growing plants without soil. This approach to agriculture can make much more efficient use of increasingly scarce fresh water and energy resources. Also, it could make it easier to combat insect pests and control plant diseases, because the food would be produced in a controlled environment. The nutritive quality of the produce would be ensured by closely controlling the mix of minerals and trace elements used to fertilize the plants. A large energy savings is achieved, by not having to transport the food over thousands of miles, and losses of nutritive quality are minimized by getting the food to consumers before its quality begins to decline in transportation and storage. The urban vertical farming enterprise also would provide local employment, and make local economies more self-sufficient.

The produce from vertical farming would essentially be organic, but perhaps not literally so, according to today’s understanding of that often misused terminology. Today, conventional organic food production often means that the food is produced without the use of chemical pesticides or artificial fertilizers. It’s true that vertical farming would be done without the use of chemical pesticides, but the way nutrients are provided in hydroponics growing systems may not always be considered strictly organic. That is because the nutrients used in hydroponics systems must be soluble in water.

In the natural growing cycle, plants must find the basic minerals required for growth (i.e., nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium – the familiar N-P-K combination listed on most packages of commercial fertilizer) in soluble form in the soil. The plants can take these chemicals into their roots, only if they are dissolved in water in the soil. The plants then use these basic nutrients to grow the stems, leaves, and fruits, that we eat. Unused portions of the plants are allowed to decompose in the soil, as natural compost. Wastes from animals who consume the plants (e.g., manure) also decompose and result in natural compost that eventually is used by plants.

In organic farming, the major nutrients are made available to the plants in the form of natural or processed compost, but the plants cannot use this compost until it is sufficiently decayed to release the basic N-P-K substances into soluble form. The primary benefit of organic growing is that the N-P-K nutrients, that are provided by farmers, in the form of compost, are locked up, as complex insoluble organic molecules that cannot be easily washed away when there are heavy rains. Instead, the basic N-P-K minerals are released gradually, as the plant material decays, so there is a steady supply of required minerals for the plants over an extended period. This limits the amount of mineral nutrients that can be run off, doing damage to the environment elsewhere, by polluting streams, rivers, bays, and oceans.

In hydroponics, providing the N-P-K minerals directly, in water soluble form, does not pose a threat to the environment, because large amounts of water are not released to the environment. The unused water in hydroponics is recycled. The only water that is released to the environment is from transpiration of the plants into the atmosphere. Even this water can be recaptured and reused in the closed system of a commercial hydroponics facility. Therefore, the use of mineral fertilizers in hydroponics is entirely acceptable, from an environmental point of view.

It’s true that hydroponics systems can be run using nutrients obtained entirely from the decay of organic materials, in which case, the produce from the hydroponics system would be considered totally “organic,” but there is no real incremental benefit to either the consumer of the produce or the environment, in so doing.

Commercial scale vertical farming projects are now being planned, but none are yet in place in American cities. The first 30-story vertical farming building is now being planned for Las Vegas. Why am I talking about this now? It’s a matter of attitude. The reaction of some people to the idea of their food being produced in urban “factories” may turn them off, even though the food produced through vertical farming promises to be more nutritious, tasty, and carbon-neutral than the food they get at their local supermarket, or even at their local farm stands during the Summer. If you think seriously about the prospect of vertical farming now, you will be able to better appreciate the development of this kind of agriculture when its produce does come to a local supermarket near you.

There are some issues that I would like to see resolved before vertical farming is implemented widely. One detail that I would like to see more well-defined is the question of where the inorganic materials would come from that are needed for the hydroponics nutrients in vertical farming. Much of the nitrogen fertilizer produced for conventional agriculture today is manufactured by combining the nitrogen in the air with natural gas, which is mostly methane. This process results in a significant release of carbon into the atmosphere. However, research is now underway to provide nitrogen fertilizer through the use of biogas, from recycled farm waste. This would improve the efficiency of vertical farming and make it more carbon-neutral.

Sustainability would be a prime objective of any vertical farming enterprise. The folks who are planning these facilities certainly have this in mind, but I would like to see some more of the details and computer modeling results that must be going into this initiative. The end result should be something like what we would be doing to sustain a colony on the moon or another planet, where vertical farming is but one element of an urban system that not only grows close to 100% of its own food, but also recycles 100% of its own wastes.

Another aspect of vertical farming, that poses questions, is what conditions would exist for any domestic animals that would be raised for food in vertical farming facilities. Current plans for vertical farming also include the raising of animals for meat, like chickens, ducks, geese, fish, crustaceans (e.g., lobsters, crabs), and mollusks (e.g., squids, clams, oysters). Raising some of the higher order animals in questionable factory conditions could give rise to issues regarding their humane treatment.

Some of you may not want to wait for local production of high-quality produce through hydroponics, in large vertical farming facilities. In that case, you might want to consider raising your own food using hydroponics, right in your basement or hobby greenhouse, or even your outdoor garden. It turns out that this can be very practical. We will discuss these applications in upcoming articles.

Most individuals see recycling as their own responsibility, either through voluntary action, or, in some jurisdictions, in accordance with the law. But in either case most recycling programs are geared toward the consumer handling their own waste.

And so it is for the producers. Manufacturers generally view safe environmental practices at their own production level – regulated plant emissions, disposal or storage of hazardous waste, anti-dumping laws, etc. But after the product leaves the plant, its post-production life is out of their hands. This is the norm in the U.S, even though other potentially impactful phases — packaging and labeling, transportation and shipping, and, of course, disposal — all pose their own unique environmental threats.

Thus, the final resting place of products will be determined by the end user, the consumer.

This current system, however, is not even close to fully addressing the problem in this age of “going green.”

According to the EPA, the U.S. generates some 251 millions tons of Municipal Waste and recycles only 82 millions tons of it, or 32.5%. About 530,000 tons of this is Household Hazardous Waste, which consists of many environmentally toxic chemicals. These, of course, include the obvious culprits — old solvents, paints, pesticides, fertilizers, poisons, etc. But household kitchen and bathroom cleaners comprise a significant portion of this waste. According to the Clean Water Fund, “the average American uses 40 pounds of toxic cleaning products, throwing away twelve percent of their leftovers and pouring an average of 32 million pounds down the drain”. This twelve percent referred to, outside of what goes down the drain, goes into landfills, where it becomes a ticking time bomb for environmental entry.

So if consumer responsibility for product recycling doesn’t work, is there a better way?

Although manufacturers cannot take responsibility for the actions of their customers, they can take stewardship of their products and minimize or eliminate their harmful environmental impacts, throughout a product’s life cycle, from manufacturing, right down to the post consumer phase. This method of foresight is known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).

Globally speaking, EPR is not a new concept.

In 1975, the Swedish Government made a formal statement concerning EPR: “The responsibility, that the waste generated during the production processes could be taken care of in a proper way, from an environmental and resource-saving point of view, should primarily be of the manufacturer. Before the manufacturing of a product is commenced it should be known how the waste which is a result of the production process should be treated, as well as how the product should be taken care of when discarded.”

The actual term EPR was coined by Swedish professor of environmental economics, defining it quite simply as “the extension of the responsibility of producers for the environmental impacts of their products to the entire product life cycle, and especially for their take-back, recycling, and disposal.” In this scenario, the cost of recovery of a product is shifted to the private sector and away from government programs, so the producer’s role includes the costs of recovery, which forces industries to incorporate these costs into their overall implementation plan for their products.

This concept has swept all over Europe, with Germany taking the lead with its Packaging Ordinance of 1991, which requires producers to manage packaging waste and eliminates government money for this purpose. Over the next four years, use of packaging decreased by about 1 million tons, as producers minimized their packaging, its weight, and used more concentrates, saving tax payer money and reducing environmental impact.

Canada has taken great strides with EPR, with much government encouragement, support and incentives to various industries, with certain industries and manufacturers operating with such programs in place in all 10 of its provinces.

The U.S., however, has lagged far behind in promoting this concept. Although deposit return bottles have provided for the take back and reuse of glass containers for over a century, and some of the larger printer companies pay for courier pick-up and delivery back to factories of empty toner cartridges for reuse, In most areas government responsibility for waste is still the norm. Hawaii, Maine and California have taken great strides, however, in implementing legislation to enforce EPR principles, and indeed, in today’s ever growing environmentally conscious society, there may be much more activity on the horizon.

Household Hazardous waste is perhaps one of the more difficult categories to envision fitting into an EPR program. A liquid’s packaging, a spray bottle, for example, can certainly be placed in a recycled bin. But, as cited before, if 12% of HHW is thrown away, that means that its packaging is being tossed with it, so what is left is in the bottle goes to the landfill. How can a company possibly take back the liquid remains from millions of spray bottles? The answer – provide a means for the customer to use it all in the first place.

The Spray-All Corporation has provided a unique method for both chemical and bottle manufacturers to partner in EPR together. The Spray-All spray bottle uses 100% of the liquid inside. Simply by using the bottle, household cleaner manufactures eliminate remaining chemicals entering the environment from landfills. The last few drops in these bottles do add up to great quantities in the aggregate: ½ teaspoon left in 1 million bottles is the equivalent of 651 gallons!

While the role of the manufacturers of these bottles may be more passive, it represents a collaborative effort to eliminate waste, and can offer these bottles in durable, re-useable, and, ultimately, recyclable forms.

The Spray-All Corporation is a start-up company, operating on a small scale, but intends to voluntarily adopt aggressive EPR strategies. Among its corporate goals include exploring a take back system for spray bottles and their reuse and/or ultimate recycle.

First, you will need to determine if your location has a sufficient amount of the right kind of winds to make electric power generation practical. Then, you will have to identify the right hardware for capturing wind energy (the wind mill) and converting it to electric power (the turbine).

The costs of the hardware and installation of your wind-to-electric power generation system will have to be weighed against the savings on your electric bill. You may want to arrange with your electric power provider to have your system hooked up to the electric power grid, so that any excess power you generate can be put into the grid as a credit on your account, and so that you can obtain power from the grid, when there isn’t sufficient wind power to meet your electricity needs. This would eliminate the waste of power you can’t use, and make the system more affordable.

Two recent developments may make personal wind power more practical. A new kind of wind turbine has been designed by ExRo technologies (www.exro.com), according to a report in MIT’s Technology Review. Electric turbines typically operate efficiently only within a narrow range of rotational speeds. If the wind-driven speed of the turbine is too great or too low, the power generated will not be enough to offset the cost of the equipment. To counteract this, conventional wind turbines are designed with front-mounted transmissions (similar to the transmission in your car), so that the turbine will turn at roughly constant speed, even though the speed of the wind mill varies greatly. The transmission adds significantly to the capital cost of the system, and presents ongoing maintenance costs, as well.

The ExRo solution replaces the mechanical transmission with an inexpensive electronic equivalent, so that the turbine can generate power efficiently at a much greater range of speeds, and with less energy losses due to friction in the mechanical transmission.This solution also allows for efficiently capturing the energy of winds that vary greatly in intensity, so that more locations, with varying wind characteristics could be used for wind power generation.

The development of a new kind of battery (see www.premiumpower.com/aboutrfc.php) that is fully recyclable and has a projected service life of about 30 years, could make residential wind power generation systems more practical. The battery is based on the use of non-toxic zinc bromide, and can store energy three times as efficiently as the lead-acid batteries used in today’s cars. Assuming that this kind of battery is made sufficiently affordable, the home user could store most of the excess electrical energy generated from the wind mill, and not have to worry about selling the excess electrical power back to the power grid.

These are but two of the ways that wind power can be made more affordable for home use, through innovative technological development.

So what does Obama plan on doing to create so many green jobs? During his time on the campaign trail he stated time and time again that he would spend more than $200 billion to create jobs in both construction and environmental industries. Not only would this go a long way in making the United States a better place to live, but it would also help the economy as well as the hundreds of thousands of people who are unemployed.

The biggest part of Obama’s plan would spend $150 billion over 10 years to create approximately five million green jobs. The main goal of this program and the new hires would be to research and develop environmentally friendly energy sources. As you know, this is something that is greatly needed as the cost of gasoline is high and emissions from vehicles are negatively impacting the environment.

Of course, Americans who do not get involved with green jobs will be able to benefit as well. For instance, Obama has plans to propose a $7,000 tax credit for purchasing “advanced cars” such as hybrids, electric vehicles, etc. To go along with this, he has a lofty goal of putting more than one million plug-in cars on the road by 2015.

As you can see, Barack Obama is not the same old president who says that he is going to worry about the environment but never gets around to it. It is safe to say that green jobs will be created, more efficient cars will hit the road, and more tax credits will be available to Americans who get involved.