From a press release from the Union of Concerned Scientists, we learn that you don’t need to worry anymore about global warming, we can just garden our way to carbon nirvana, that is, if the bugs don’t eat it. -Anthony
WASHINGTON (April 26, 2010) Home gardeners can avoid contributing to climate change by using certain techniques and tools that are more climate-friendly than others, according to a new gardening guide released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The science-based guide explains the connection between land use and global warming, and offers recommendations for conscientious gardeners to maximize the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide their green spaces store and minimize the other global warming gases gardens can emit.
“Many Americans understand that powering our cars and computers overloads our atmosphere with heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide,” said Karen Perry Stillerman, a senior analyst with the UCS Food and Environment Program. “With the right practices, farmers and gardeners can lock up some of that carbon in the soil.”
When too much carbon dioxide and other global warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are released into the air, they act like a blanket, trapping heat in the atmosphere and altering weather patterns around the world, Stillerman explained. Unchecked climate change will have serious consequences for public health and the environment.
Although agriculture can store carbon and reduce other emissions on a much larger scale, gardeners can help. The Climate-Friendly Gardener: A Guide to Combating Global Warming from the Ground Up (www.ucsusa.org/gardenguide) offers five recommendations for gardeners.
1. Minimize Carbon-Emitting Tools and Products. Gasoline-powered lawn mowers and leaf blowers are obvious sources of heat-trapping carbon dioxide. A typical mower emits 20 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon. Synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which require a lot of energy to produce, also contribute to global warming. The new guide provides several tips for avoiding garden chemicals and fossil-fuel-powered equipment.
2. Use cover crops. Bare off-season gardens are vulnerable to erosion, weed infestation and carbon loss. Seeding grasses, cereal grains or legumes in the fall builds up the soil, reduces the need for energy-intensive chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and maximizes carbon storage. The guide recommends that gardeners plant peas, beans, clovers, rye and winter wheat as cover crops and explains the specific advantages that legume and non-legume cover crop choices have for gardens.
3. Plant Trees and Shrubs Strategically. Planting and maintaining one or more trees or large shrubs is an excellent way to remove more heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over a long period of time. A recent study estimated that the trees in U.S. urban areas store nearly 23 million tons of carbon in their tissues every year. That’s more than all of the homes, cars, and industries in Los Angeles County emit annually, or about as much as all of the homes in Illinois or Pennsylvania emit every year. Well-placed trees also shade buildings from the summer sun or buffer them from cold winter winds, reducing the need for—and cost of—air conditioning and heating. UCS’s guide discusses the most suitable types of trees for a climate-friendly yard.
4. Expand Recycling to the Garden. Yard trimmings and food waste account for nearly 25 percent of U.S. landfill waste, and the methane gas released as the waste breaks down represents 3 to 4 percent of all human-generated heat-trapping gases. Studies indicate that well-managed composted waste has a smaller climate impact than landfills. The UCS guide describes how to create a climate-friendly compost pile.
5. Think Long and Hard about Your Lawn. Residential lawns, parks, golf courses and athletic fields are estimated to cover more than 40 million acres—about as much as all the farmland in Illinois and Indiana combined. A growing body of research suggests that lawns can capture and store significant amounts of carbon dioxide, but some newer studies warn of the potential for well-watered and fertilized lawns to generate heat-trapping nitrous oxide. The science is unsettled, but there are practical things gardeners can do to maximize lawn growth and health with a minimum of fertilizer and water. The new UCS guide summarizes the science and offers tips for homeowners to make their lawns truly “green.”
“Gardening practices alone won’t solve global warming, but they can move us in the right direction, just like installing super efficient light bulbs and using reusable bags,” said Stillerman. “Seventy percent of Americans garden, and they can have a positive impact. Our guide shows them how.”
###
h/t to WUWT reader Milwaukee Bob
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I say grow your garden really tall, harvest a bit of food, and burn it as an offering to Gaia, preferably while dancing around chanting. That’s how a real concerned scientist does things.
@L says: May 10, 2010 at 11:00 pm
From the Wikipedia article on gasoline: The specific density of gasoline ranges from 0.71–0.77, higher densities having a greater volume of aromatics.[7] (0.026 lb/in3; 719.7 kg/m3; 6.073 lb/US gal; 7.29 lb/imp gal). Gasoline floats on water; water cannot generally be used to extinguish a gasoline fire, unless used in a fine mist.
Gasoline and diesel both float on water, that is how water separating fuel filters work. Also why the fuel filter bowl on my diesel tractor is mounted vertically and has a clear bowl. When you see water in the bottom of the bowl you need to drain the water.
As far as getting ~20 lbs of CO2 out of a gallon of fuel, see the explanation from Harold in the comments above @HaroldW says: May 10, 2010 at 10:22 pm.
I support the union of CC in their fight against GM crops and the lies that the agricorps are pushing, I am saddened that they have hopped on the idiots bandwagon though:-(
synthetic fertilizers made from chemical waste arent good, Melamine is a classic, coal byproduct touted as nitrogen and a great fertiliser, uh uh eventually they had to admit the plants dont utilise it as its structure is not assimilable without soil biota and they dont like it much either! storing carbon as plant material in the soils, especially in Aus, is a desperate need. our topsoils are so shallow its not funny. NOT for warmistas bull ideas just for soil water and nutrient retention.
plenty of evidence that roundup and other chems are NOT as safe as touted and that some are killing bees, ie Bayer admitted Imidacloprid was a bee and small mammal issue, yet they still allow it to be used..theres money and power behind it.
Incitec bags here had a warning that they conatined Fly Ash with Cadmium at varying levels, the company itself warned NOT to graze animals on the crop residue..yeah what! thats the same crop WE are eating the grain from..
Bt isnt the Bt that the greener growers use, its a lb rat variety many thousands of times stronger and sorry but I for one do NOT want to be ingesting it in the food I buy.
I flatly refuse to buy any american foodstuffs due to GM, and I am wildly angry at the renewed campaign b the GM advocates to try and stop anyone labelling their food as NON GM..cos it may “predjudice their sales” like they did with rBGH milk, utter bas**rds! the consumer HAS the Right to KNOW and decide accordingly.
Union of CC did prove that the GM increses are lies! and they used USDA own figures to prove it.
they aren’t/weren’t all bad, really.
Is not gas and oil far more toxic in liquid form compared to burning it?
The concept that organic produce or “natural” pesticides aare better for the environment ignores the reality that all pesticides and fertilizers are chemicals. Some of the organic pesticides are far more harmful than man-made pesticides. An example is the widely used pyrethrum (made from chrysanthemums) which is high on the list of dangerous chemicals. It can effect the central nervous system and immune sytems and is implicated in pollution of waterways. In short it is an approved “organic” pesticide that is far worse than most “chemical” pesticides. “Organic” farmers are able to use it because it is organic and are forbidden to use more effective and safer man-made alternatives which are far kinder on the environment.
Organic is not necessarily more environmentally friendly or safer. It does however seem to be able to help sooth the insufferable guilt of liberals that they tend to try and inflict on those of us whose main purpose in life is to enjoy it.
During the late ’80’s Opinion Magazine sent out 2500 surveys to people randomly selected from “Who’s Who of American Men and Women in Science and Technology”.
There were about 100,000 people in the volume at that time. It included most R&D department heads of all companies, heads of research labs, published scientists, etc.
The survey was on attitudes towards Nuclear Power. 87% favorable responses! (And they recieved 1800 of the surveys back, an INCREDIBLE return rate!) They got ONE positive response to the question, “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists?”
They said statistically it was 90% likely that less than 200 of the 100,000 in the Who’s Who were associated with the UCS.
The UCS has steadfastly refused to release any information on the credentials of their “membership”. Henry Kendall, their titular leader, was given a Nobel Prize in the ’80’s for his work on “quarks” in the ’70’s. Perhaps one of the most politically motivated NP’s in the sciences of all time, as the work was trivial. (But used mightily to try to bolster the “credibility” of the UCS.
Sorry my info is so dated. I was strongly involved in nuclear power at the time. What’s interesting to me is that the UCS and their ilk SUCCEEDED in their goal to destroy nuclear power (now a DEAD DUCK). So they have moved on. Now we understand their goal: DESTROY ALL OF MODERN SOCIETY. “Luddite” anyone?
Mark T says:
May 10, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Union of Concerned Scientists? There’s a point at which advocacy becomes so obvious that even a retarded monkey catches on. Are these guys really serious?
Mark
_______________________________________________________________________
I just came across a site, “Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist”, that praises Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists and the Animal Liberation Front.
The slant on other articles in WUWT [Marketing Advice For Mad Scientists] is rather interesting:
“What would be the Olin Foundation’s motivation in funding a conference on the Science Wars? Did it think that “intellectual relativism” was eating away at the fiber of the American academy? I don’t quite know how to put this, but the idea of the Olin Foundation coming to the aid of “enlightenment values” strikes me as almost as ridiculous as Christopher Hitchens opposing “establishment power”. Their main interest should be obvious. Olin doesn’t want leftwing scientists mucking about on issues such as global warming, carcinogens in the food we eat, water and air pollution, etc.
Just to take one example, the Olin Foundation donated more than $25,000 to an outfit called the American Council on Science and Health. Other donors included the General Electric Foundation, the Monsanto Fund and other such bodies dedicated to fighting bad writing and fashionable nonsense.
If you go to their website, you will find an article on the home page titled “Claims of Industry Tampering with Science Are Overblown”. Well, I should have known. The executive director of ACSH, who claims that “A new scientific McCarthyism is alive and well in America today”, was introducing an ACSH study titled “Scrutinizing Industry-Funded Science: The Crusade Against Conflicts of Interest”, written by one Ronald Bailey. Bailey argues:
Why should having once consulted with Pfizer or DuPont disqualify a scientist from serving on a government advisory board or writing a review article in a scientific journal, while being a lifelong member of Greenpeace does not? And if owning $10,000 in Dow stock represents a potential conflict of interest, surely $10,000 in funding from the Union of Concerned Scientists does too.
This argument raises speciousness to stratospheric levels. The mission of the Union of Concerned Scientists is to search for science-based solutions to problems facing society as a whole. Nobody has ever accused the Union of bias, except perhaps against corporations…..” http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/butterflies-and-wheels/
Do these “scientists” actually know where most of the CO2 is turned into O2. Where do you think most of the CO2 is converted to O2? If you answered trees, you’d be wrong. In fact, if your answer had anything that requires soil to grow, you would be wrong. Most of our oxygen is generated in the ocean. I don’t remember the exact ratio, but I believe it is 2-1. Whatever the ratio, it is a proven fact that the ocean produces the vast majority of oxygen.
So these “scientists” come along and say my tiny garden is going to reduce my carbon footprint. (*slaps head*) Considering that most of the oxygen we need comes from the ocean, my tiny garden is going to help very little. It would be like adding a drop of water to a lake. That is why I know these people aren’t real scientists, because they are greedy and they don’t check their statement against known, proven, and related variables.
Look, I’m growing a tiny garden, not to reduce my carbon footprint, but because I like fresh vegetables and to save money.
Meanwhile there’s another AGW front group with the same old crowd behind it:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/mackinderProgramme/theHartwellPaper/Default.htm
Have you wondered how this is perceived by foreigners (not- “Green-Goes”)?, well…..simply this confirms that most of you are simply and painfully SILLY.
Now, there is a book which says:
Although rarely acknowledged, environmental religion owes its moral activism, ascetic discipline, reverence for nature, and fallen view of man to the Protestant theology of John Calvin. A remarkable number of American environmental leaders, including John Muir, Rachel Carson, David Brower, Edward Abbey, and Dave Foreman, were raised in the Presbyterian church (the Scottish branch of Calvinism) or one of its offshoots. Earlier forerunners of modern environmentalism who were influenced by Calvinism include the American transcendentalists Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau and the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who offered a secular version of the fall of man from the original “state of nature [in which] man lived happily in peace.”
I don´t know if this explains it but…don´t you feel embarrased by the whole issue?
Anyone in the world who could dare to tell you the truth (as the majority will not-just in case there is some money to get from you-) will tell you the same.
A typical mower emits 20 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon.
Really? A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 pounds and the mower emits other things besides CO2. Also, I think some the O2 is already in the gasoline. Like the candy bar that causes a 5 pound weight gain I guess.
Well yet another reason not to have to cut the grass.
Flash news: Mike Hulme accepts the Enlightenment, championing human dignity over human guilt.
=============
Warren says:
May 10, 2010 at 9:26 pm
“A typical mower emits 20 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon”
Can anyone explain how to turn 10lb (Imperial Gallon) into 20lb Co2?
Warren-
CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse”, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2…you didn´t know it, did you?)
You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
CO2 is heavier than Air, so it can not go up, up and away to cover the earth.
The atmosphere, the air can not hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
Global Warmers models (a la Hansen) expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.
Warren says:
May 10, 2010 at 9:26 pm
“A typical mower emits 20 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon”
Can anyone explain how to turn 10lb (Imperial Gallon) into 20lb Co2?
Warren-
First of all, they are probably talking of a US gallon, which is 5/6 the size of Imperial. Second, each pound of carbon produces 44/12 pounds of CO2 (basic chemistry).
Murray Carpenter says:
You are wrong, Gasoline does float on water. Try it!
So does gravy, very small rocks, apples, and a duck.. so logically… gasoline is a witch!
Robert says:
May 10, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Union of Concerned Scientists?
Sounds more like a new religion to me that is out there to ban everything that is fun for a lot of people. I mean come on gardening, in most parts of the world it is also known as food production …
Not any more then, don’t anger the climatechange gods and their high priests is the new word, gardening is a sin and therefore bad, now redeem yourself and plant your garden in such a way as the holy scriptures demand.
____________________________________________________________________
Be careful what you wish for. The WTO/UN already has a bill, HR 2749, before Congress to do just that: http://www.newswithviews.com/Hannes/doreen100.htm
It tells us how to Run our farms and gardens according to the holy scriptures as handed down by the UN, OIE, ISO and WTO.
A consolidation of articles written by farmers about recent food bills (there have been several) can be seen here:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=2287
or here
http://farmwars.info/?cat=116
From Farmwars: This account of a story in the recent news is a real eye opener. Amazing how the MSM gets the facts wrong. And good grief the guy IDENTIFIED his murderer, the murderer was cornered by his neighbors and the authorities LET the murderer GO! Gives you the warm fuzzies does it not? (BTW I know the author who wrote this piece & Marti does not lie)
http://farmwars.info/?p=2858
Warren says:
May 10, 2010 at 9:26 pm
“A typical mower emits 20 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon”
Can anyone explain how to turn 10lb (Imperial Gallon) into 20lb Co2?
Warren-
First of all, they are probably talking of a US gallon, which is 5/6 the size of Imperial, so 8.33 lb of water. Second, each pound of carbon produces 44/12 pounds of CO2 (basic chemistry).
It then comes down to the amount of carbon in a gallon of gasoline. Making the wild assumption that gasoline is all straight-chain octane, C8H18, molecular weight is 114. Specific gravity is somewhere around 0.9, so a US gallon of gasoline would weigh somewhere around 8.33 x 0.9 = 7.5 lb. Of that 7.5 lb, the carbon would be 96/114 x 7.5, or 6.3 lb. That would produce 44/12 x 6.3 = 23.2 pounds of CO2.
So, the mower wold produce more than 20 lb of CO2 per gallon of gasoline burned.
Apologies if someone else has posted on this subject before I have read all comments.
IanM
For people concerned with spreading so much crap around, the UCS knows so little about crap, perhaps they know nothing at all. I love the idea of growing ground cover under snow, brilliant, who else could have dreamed this up? What literally fertile minds!
I garden avidly. I agree with #’s 2 and 4. However, I’d prefer more CO2 in the air please. Buy an SUV and help my garden. Thanks in advance.
Gail Combs,
That is a very scary Farm Wars link.
“A growing body of research suggests that lawns can capture and store significant amounts of carbon dioxide”
Are public schools no longer describing the deep layer of black earth which the settlers found on the Great Plains grasslands?
But sheep eating my grass produce methane which is more of a GHG. We will be one big happy Rodale Press. Lots of folks who starve, but heck, they don’t matter, they live overseas anyway.
“A typical mower emits 20 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon”
Eureka! This is not just perpetual motion, but perpetual motion with turbo drive!
What I don’t understand is how it is that people like this don’t starve for want of employment.
Scarlet Pumpernickel says: May 11, 2010 at 2:29 am
How do I control my lawn so that it doesn’t upset the balance of the planet?
Use a mulching lawn mower and don’t bag the clippings.