Green Committee talk on 9/17: what Southborough can do about increasing CO2

by beth on September 10, 2013

Post image for Green Committee talk on 9/17: what Southborough can do about increasing CO2

Above: From the upcoming presentation, this graph shows the increase in CO2 over the past 50+ years. (Image submitted)

If you are concerned or confused about the effect that greenhouse gas emissions on our planet, you may want to come to the Southborough Library on Tuesday, September 17, at 7:00 p.m.

The Southborough Green Technology and Recycling Committee will be holding a talk.  Their goal is to form a network of individuals and organizations in Southborough who are concerned about the issues of greenhouse gas emissions.

This is a chance for residents concerned with the effects of CO2 increases to gather and talk. It is also an opportunity for anyone who wants to learn more about the issue.

The talk will begin with the presentation “400 and Rising” by committee Chair Carl Guyer. Some of the focus points:
20130910-400-rising

  • The 350 parts per million threshold is the maximum atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide for a safe planet.
  • PreIndustrial Revolution levels were near 250 parts per million.
  • In May 2013, it was measured at topping 400 parts per million.
  • Recent measurements indicate CO2 levels are rising at 2 parts per million per year.
  • The potential impact to global warming, climate change and economic stability.

This will be followed by a discussion of what residents and organizations can do to help address the problem.

Click here to enlarge

1 Mike F. September 11, 2013 at 9:46 AM

I equate enviromental police to anti gun enthuisiasts and this is why. And to preface my input, I have been a hunter, environmentalist for 35 years way before it was col to protect God’s green earth. First of all that chart is not indicative of the US. It includes the world. Our country now is fairly balanced and contributes far more to clean air, clean water and a clean environment, to the point we can no longer afford to manufacture so the jobs go to Mexco, Brazil, China, India and other counties who do not honor any of the Green laws that we have here in the US (Europe does do a decent job). Can we do a better job? Certainly we can and we can strive toward that in a practical manner and I hope that is what Carl and Co. will focus on and not emotions and far fetched institutional data. But when you have major sounders in hollywood, politicians, and very high income folks who can buy the green credits (carbon offsets on the Chicago Mercantile) and still have their 50,000 square foot homes with multiple 50 ton chillers, multiple air handlers, toxic chemilas on their palatial laws, that is where Carl needs to put his efforts. Not to mention the carbon from all their jets and cars and boats. We in the US have killed enough jobs in the US, wasted enough tax dollars (government funded businesses who contribute hugley to the last liberal demacrat election) on Solyndra (solar panels costing twice what it costs to buy from China). Another issue is the huge amount of Environmental students being put out by our universites that has flooded every sector of the US economy with what I call Environmental televangelists – the religion of green. Their reahc is burdonsome and over reaching (again, I am all for green and taking care of God’s green earth). And then with more laywers per capita than Rome when if fell, the law firms are just devestating those of us who try to own and run a business in America. The rising CO2 chart is outdated now as well and the raw emmissions from China and India alone are killing the environment there and possibly elsewhere. See you at the meeting Carl and be prepared to bring true science (repeatable evidence) and not just emotions. Like the Public Health Forum two months ago, the good doctor was focused on ill contrived data, emotion, and not focused on the true issue of the mental illness, pill distribution (ADD Pills-derivatives of speed and cocaine), no fathers in the home crisis of young men in America and related gun violence by those kids. I won the debate based on science and not emotion of focusing on the gun. Very similar to the non scientific basis for so called global warming.

2 M September 13, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Dear Mike, I was an environmentalist well more than 35 years ago and I didn’t ever care if it was cool.. Native Americans were taking care of our planet long before anyone, without the need for science to back them up. But it does seem that emotion is fueling your comments. Perhaps, you might allow citizens to attend this presentation just to inform them of what small conritubutions they and our little town of Southborough can do, to maintain a clean environment. Maybe you can bring the list of things that you do every day as an environmentalist. This would be helpful. I doubt this meeting is intended to solve the problems of the world. See you there.

3 Al Hamilton September 13, 2013 at 2:54 PM

As near as I can tell, the number one emitter of Greenhouse Gasses in the Town of Southborough is the Town of Southborough.

We burn about 25,000 gallons of gasoline in our police cruisers each year. The result is about 225 Tons of CO2. If we used more fuel efficient cruisers (which are available) we could put a dent in that number. Similarly we should be looking at smaller vehicles for other town functions when possible.

We operate a very inefficient municipal infrastructure (schools and town) leading to heating and cooling more space than necessary. Closing and consolidating our infrastructure would also make a dent.

On a somewhat more controversial note, I believe that global warming is real and there are 2 things that we can do to reduce our national output of greenhouse emissions without hurting the economy.

Promote the large scale development of Natural Gas. The US is the only industrial country with falling greenhouse emissions. This is almost exclusively because of shale gas development. Natural Gas is replacing Coal. Natural gas has 1/2 of the greenhouse emissions of Coal. Use of Natural Gas as a replacement for Heating Oil, Diesel, and Gasoline also has greenhouse benefits. This does mean that if you want to reduce greenhouse gasses you have to be in favor of responsible hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking). There is no free lunch here.

Be serious about Nuclear Energy – No CO2 and lots of reliable reasonably priced energy when you need it. Nuclear energy over its entire life, including Fukashima, Chernoybl and 3 Mile Island has killed fewer people than 1 year of global coal mining. It is reasonably safe and very reliable and very green (at least from a CO2 perspective).

4 Frank Crowell September 13, 2013 at 3:28 PM

I planted some new lawn this year. Does that count as a CO2 reduction?

5 Ken G September 17, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Considering that you probably treat it with quantities of synthetic chemicals and mow it with a gas-driven power mower, I would say no.

6 Frank Crowell September 17, 2013 at 9:36 PM

No actually – manure, lime and I mow with a reel lawn mower – the ones you push. Wonderful exercise.

I am thinking of adding cows when/if I retire. Takes care of both ends of the operation but I cannot find a way to bottle the methane.

7 Frank Crowell September 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM

We might need some increased “manmade” global warming. Arctic ice sheet is increasing.

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-60-photo.htm

8 Southville September 16, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I don’t think the Southborough blog is the ideal place to debate climate change, however I just wanted to point out that claims that ice is increasing are false, and can only be backed up by some cherry picking of a few individual data points while ignoring the rest.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html

9 Frank Crowell September 17, 2013 at 7:14 AM

Ah yes, and all the “manmade” global warming data is as pure as the driven snow without any political motivation.

This is not the place debate global warming, but we would be better served as a community if two scientists were to show up with two different views on “manmade” global warming. That presentation I would attend.

10 Matthew Brownell September 17, 2013 at 5:13 PM

I feel an overpowering urge to grill a big, fat Ribeye, stomp on the accelerator of a Shelby GT, and tip over a few Smart cars . . .

Previous post:

Next post: