With the news that climate change is occurring at a faster rate than climate models have predicted, geoengineering solutions have been brought to the fore and are being taken more seriously. The main focus of these emergency geoengineering strategies is a reduction in “shortwave” radiation entering the Earth’s atmosphere via the solar wind.

The short-term goal here is an overall reduction in global atmospheric temperatures to slow, or even reverse, warming trends. These solutions include increasing the amount of reflective particles surrounding the Earth by placing reflective particles (”mirrors”) outside the atmosphere. Such a solution may be justified to quickly curtail an emergent crisis–such as the rapid disintegration of the polar icecaps. Another strategy is to blanket the upper atmosphere with sulfur particles to block shortwave energy from reaching the Earth’s surface, thus producing a pronounced cooling effect (of variable duration).

However, in a recently published paper, Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies by Blackstock et al, this and other controversial strategies are analyzed in terms of feasibility, short-term impact, and also, the potential risks and dangers. The authors are also calling for a study phase. The major criticism in the paper is that current geoengineering strategies focus on a reduction of temperature without due consideration of the impact on precipitation, which also drives climate change. The cooler the surface temperature, in general, the less overall precipitation ( due to the fact that there is less energy for evaporation). Focusing only on temperature reduction, via incoming solar radiation, could backfire, leading to a shift in global hydrology cycles and, possibly, drought. Also, sulfur in the atmosphere combines with water to form sulfuric acid–the primary source of “acid rain”–a problem dramatically reduced since the passage of the Clean Air act.

Read more of this story »

Compared to conventional remediation that involves weeks, months or even years of work along with a potentially huge carbon footprint for transporting or capping soil, the solar-powered exhaust systems took mere hours to install and resulted in an immediate 95% reduction in TCE vapors within the homes.  The EPA plans to extend the program this fall to other homes affected by the Delfasco site.

Read more of this story »

Last summer VeruTEK announced the latest in a string of successful remediation projects.  The site was contaminated with up to an inch of toxic chemicals such as volatile organic compounds and petroleum hydrocarbons.  Three months after completion of the project, the contamination was reduced to non-detectable limits.  With an estimated 294,000 more toxic sites in the U.S. waiting for remediation, alterna-clean companies like VeruTEK have their work cut out for them.

Read more of this story »

How much of this cost was needed?  None of it.  The buyers could have better used the money to buy a bucket and a sponge.  They would have had ample funds left to repair their roof.

Read more of this story »

Whoever said a sustainability was impossible?!

Sustainability, impossible?!? That kind of negative thinking is nowhere to be found among the members of the Rhizome Collective in Austin, Texas.  They see a problem with the way we are currently living, and damned if they aren’t going to fix it!

Rhizome Collective chose their name based on the meaning of the word rhizome–

“An expanding underground root system, sending up above ground shoots to form a vast network. Difficult to uproot. “

–and the name couldn’t be a more perfect fit.  Rhizome Collective distinguishes itself as an exemplary resource center for sustainable efforts across the country, offering workshops, consulting and now even a book for others who wish to start up their own deeply green community.

What makes Rhizome Collective special?

Just one look at their Virtual Tour makes clear: Rhizome Collective is thorough and well-researched about the work they do.  They are also optimistic that the knowledge of natural systems can be applied to make the world far, far more sustainable than it currently is.

Furthermore, Rhizome Collective operates on what some would argue is likewise a “forward-thinking” model–a consensus-based, anarchistic (or “direct democracy”) organizational model.  Their hopes for environmental justice mirror their efforts for equality and fairness in organizing, too.

Sustainability in action

Anyone in the Austin area has probably heard of Rhizome Collective through its two-year transformation of the seemingly hopeless Grove Brownfield problem in the Montopolis neighborhood of Austin.  In just two years, the team of over 175 volunteers turned a decades-old landfill and illegal dumping site into an open space, on its way to remediation and reuse.  This outstanding accomplishment was honored with a major grant from the EPA Brownfield Cleanup Award, and Rhizome Collective’s emphasis on reusing the brownfield’s debris in creating an “environmental justice park” on the site garnered even greater praise.

Read more of this story »

"It’s a proven technology, but in an unproven environment," said Mr. Butcher, 27. "The idea of growing energy crops is not necessarily a new one; the idea of growing them on distributed sites on vacant land, in an urban context, is kind of a new idea."

Kind of. It’s happening elsewhere, in dribs and drabs. Monroeville’s Cardinal Resources plants poplar trees, which suck up toxic waste, at manufacturing sites around the country, but doesn’t convert those plants into fuels. In Los Angeles, a design team funded by the Annenberg Foundation has turned a 32-acre rail yard into a massive cornfield and garden. But that project, dubbed "Not a Cornfield," is more urban artwork than laboratory. The closest parallel can be found in Michigan, where Michigan State University researchers are turning a 2-acre dump site into land for biodiesel and ethanol crops.

Using plants, enzymes, fungi, or microorganisms to depollute contaminated areas isn’t an entirely novel concept. Phytoremediation - using plants to clean up the soil - has been practiced for centuries. Due to general increases in industrial pollution and the sheer potential of the idea, using naturally and (more recently) genetically-engineered organisms to ameliorate pollution has gained special emphasis in the last 20 years.

The CMU group is taking the next logical step in bioremediation by attempting to create a usable byproduct, in this case fuel:

GTECH [Growth Through Energy and Community Health], a nonprofit that sprang out of a master’s thesis, is hoping to bring all of the divergent threads together, stitching a strategy that will cleanse contaminated industrial land, occupy vacant urban plots and produce renewable fuels, the last of which happens to be one of the hot political topics du jour.

Test crops already have been planted. At the former LTV Steel site in Hazelwood, the GTECH crew has taken over six barren acres of fill and planted hybrid poplar trees, switchgrass and sunflowers. The first two can be reduced into cellulosic ethanol — that is, ethanol that isn’t corn- or grain-based — while sunflowers become conventional biodiesel.

Testing several types of crops is important, since each plant removes different contaminants. For example, ragweed and poplar trees sequester lead. Barley and sugar beets excel at removing salt and have commonly been used to desalinate agricultural land. Naturally occurring bacteria can be harnessed to assist in cleaning up oil spills. And sunflowers are apparently well-suited to remove arsenic and uranium from soils - just in case you had a chemical explosion or a nuclear meltdown.

It’s also important to find crops with properties conducive to making biofuels. Growing ethanol- or biodiesel-producing crops on contaminated land bypasses the food vs. fuel issue and could make more land available for cultivation.

But it isn’t clear that any of these crops will actually work for the intended purpose, especially on really polluted sites. Will it take a succession of several different crops or polyculture to fully remediate the soil? Will the plants even grow under such poor conditions? And more importantly for the project, will the biofuels meet ASTM fuel standards, considering the contaminant load they could contain?

"We’re not growing on even farmland, which is hard enough to grow on," said Ms. Koch, 33. "We’re growing on vacant properties, which are usually demolished houses that have brick and glass and cement and rebar and all kinds of terrible things. [Crop] quality is going to be a concern," especially in the first years. It’s a concern at Michigan State, too. Will the end product meet industry standards — and, should they come to pass, federal standards — for what makes usable biofuel?

Time will tell.  In any case, it’s a great idea, and the group deserves a nod:

"You’re going to see a lot more land, whether it’s a brownfield or otherwise, get utilized for crops like that. I wouldn’t be surprised to someday see all the highway grass be switchgrass instead," he said. Rather than paying PennDOT workers to mow grass along the sides of highways, farmers or biofuel companies might bid for the rights to harvest the switchgrass, which sprouts perennially and grows well in poor soil and cooler climates.

CMU grads want to use blighted industrial, residential sites to produce bio-fuel crops. July 10, 2007. Post-Gazette.
Wikipedia: Phytoremediation
Wikipedia: Bioremediation

Photo Credit: Post-Gazette