ELVIN (Electric Vehicle with Interactive Noise). Photo from the Warwick Manufacturing Group website

And what can be done about this?

Electric cars, so their manufacturers tell us, will be the cars of the future. There is much justification for this claim – electric cars have the potential to reduce harmful gas emissions and should mean that many countries could reduce their dependence on oil.

These vehicles are also incredibly silent – a feature which advertisers market as a selling point but which in fact could be considered a design flaw…

So surely the world would be a better place if cars produced less loud noises? Well, yes and no. Yes as everyone wants a quieter living environment. And no because if, like me, you often find yourself nearly stepping into the path of a cyclist because you haven’t heard them coming you will know how essential the noise of vehicles is.

Vehicle noise helps all road users judge the speed of other traffic and their proximity to us. It can also help our brains quickly process information about the direction from which a vehicle is approaching and whether the vehicle is accelerating or slowing.

Internal car noise can also help drivers ascertain the state of their car; has the engine conked out, what speed are they travelling, is the car ‘under pressure’? It is always reassuring to hear some noise when you put your foot on the pedal.

As electric vehicles generally remain quiet at low speeds, their drivers do not have these audio prompts to sharpen their senses. In a way, electric car drivers cannot call on all their senses to drive safely.

And road safety experts are starting to get more vocal about the safety implications of cars which are very quiet at low speed.

At a recent road safety conference, research organisation Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG) highlighted evidence which shows that hybrid electric vehicles are twice as likely to be involved in an accident when:

• Stopping or slowing
• Entering or leaving a parking space

Electric cars could also pose safety risks to blind and partially-sighted groups.

It is clear that there is a demand for electric cars to have the sound put back into them. This could be ‘inherent’ sound (by adapting the machinery so that it produces real sound) or ‘synthesised’ sound.

The idea of synthesised sound in a vehicle might seem a strange concept but then many electric tills are designed to mimic the sound of ‘old-school’ tills opening and shutting – a great help for letting shop assistants know when a transaction has gone through and whether the till has been left open or not.

And a rather dinky looking green van called ELVIN is the vehicle world’s equivalent of an electric shop till. ELVIN stands for ‘electric vehicle with interactive noise’ and ‘he’ has been modified by his manufacturer WMG to emit different sounds dependent on his speed and state.

Much publicity surrounded ELVIN’S unveiling in 2011 and motoring journalists were clearly impressed with the fact that the green vehicle is capable of producing white noise and UFO sounds depending on the situation he finds himself in.

BBC News, reporting on the issue of silent electric vehicles, posed the question: “What noise should an electric car make?”

Personally, I’d be in favour of them sounding like a real car rather than a UFO, police car or crazy frog. But then maybe that’s just me!

Nissan has the same idea and is already started fitting noise-emitting speakers beneath the bonnets of the electric cars which roll off its production lines.

Hopefully you will see – and, of course, hear – more ELVIN-style vehicles on a road near you soon.

James Christie writes for road safety association GEM Motoring Assist. Check out the GEM website to find some great breakdown cover deals.

This article was originally posted on Natural Environment.

Get a load of this fact, for instance: New York City’s Midtown area has an average 7.1 metric tons of carbon emissions per person, whereas the United States average is 24.5 metric tons. That means urban dwellers in New York use about a quarter of the average carbon output for United States citizens in general, according to NewYorkWaste.org.

So how can you watch your carbon footprint and reduce your environmental impact while living in the city? Here are six tips to help you go green while dwelling in the city:

1. Walk, Bike, or Use Public Transportation

Of course, the number one way to go green in the city is to cut down dramatically on your fuel consumption by walking, biking, or using public transportation whenever possible. Many city dwellers do this already, since their workplaces and retail and entertainment spots are close by. Plus, with all that traffic from the suburbanites driving into their urban offices, who wants to drive?

While many city dwellers don’t own a car at all, if you do much travel outside of your city, you may need to keep a car for occasional use. If this is the case, you can make your travel greener by checking out gas credit cards that allow you to use your accumulated points to donate money to green charities and initiatives. This can help offset your carbon footprint when you are using fuel to travel to someplace out of walking or public transportation range.

2. Choose an Apartment Wisely

Many of today’s cities feature green apartment buildings that are made with sustainable materials or that simply feature energy-efficient appliances and insulation. Even if this type of apartment building isn’t an option for you, you can cut back on your carbon footprint by thinking small. Living in a small, efficient space rather than a sprawling home or apartment can drastically cut back on your energy usage.
When looking for the perfect apartment to buy or rent, also consider how close your home will be to the key places you need or want to visit on a regular basis. Living within walking distance of your office, if possible, can help you cut back on your carbon footprint even more by avoiding even public transportation.

3. Plant a Garden

Even in the city, it’s completely possible to grow some of your own food, or to at least keep a few plants around to improve your apartment’s air quality. The web is full of resources for urban gardeners, and several great books have been published on the topic during the recent popularization of green living, as well.

When you’re in the city, it’s important to think vertically for your gardens, and your access to sunlight also makes a big difference. If you want to live downtown but grow some of your own herbs and vegetables, find an apartment with a balcony or patio that faces west or south, and then take advantage of stacking pots and other vertical gardening options so that you can make the most of the space allotted to you.

4. Shop Locally

Often times, local shops and farmer’s markets congregate in inner-city areas, rather than in the suburbs, where chains and big box stores are more common. According to sustainableconnections.org, shopping locally reduces your environmental impact in several ways. For one, local businesses tend to source their supplies locally, which means there is less transportation and use of fossil fuels involved in getting products to you.

Shopping locally for your food has even more environmental impact, since local farmers tend to be better stewards of the local earth and environment, as they rely on it for generations’ worth of sustainable farming. Even local farms that are not certified organic use more sustainable farming practices than sprawling farming conglomerates that grow produce for chain supermarkets and box stores.

5. Recycle

Because more cities are focusing on green initiatives, it’s often easier for urban dwellers to recycle than it is for suburbanites or individuals who live in the country to do the same. If you aren’t already recycling whenever possible, find out more about your city’s recycling initiatives, and take advantage of them.

One advantage of apartment living is that urban apartments often offer recycling pick-up services. Even if this isn’t the case with your apartment, check for recycling drop-off points within easy walking distance of your home. You can seriously reduce your environmental footprint simply by recycling whatever and whenever you can.

6. Support Your Local Parks

As today’s cities strive to become more environmentally friendly, more of them are putting environmental initiatives into practice by cultivating green spaces for the communities in the form of local parks. These green spaces help clean up the air in cities, and can even help clean up the water supply that is often contaminated by run-off from the city’s asphalt and concrete services.

By supporting your local parks systems through voting for city initiatives that support and expand city parks, volunteering in your local park, or simply enjoying what the parks system has to offer on a regular basis, you can ensure that your city continues to expand and promote the parks system.

Going green even when you live in the city isn’t actually that difficult. Sure, you probably can’t raise chickens or grow all your own produce, but you can buy locally-raised poultry and vegetables and grow your own herbs instead. These six simple steps can help you reduce your carbon footprint and have a positive impact for the environment, even when you live in the city.

This article was contributed by Daniela Baker from http://www.creditdonkey.com/frugal-commuter.html

This article was originally posted on Natural Environment.

There are many benefits to having a home is powered using green sources. In the long run there are definite cost savings which will come from the transition; but maybe more important is the preservation of the earth for the generations that will come in to the future. Rather than use up all the earth’s limited resources, it makes sense to instead switch, when possible, to greener energy sources. Going green is all about using energy sources which are renewable and not in jeopardy of being depleted.

Take a look at 2 ways families are using green power to heat their home in non-traditional ways:

Wind

Though a large enough turbine would quite easily power a houses power requirements these large wind turbines are normally difficult to get planning permission for without a large area of space away from neighbours. Normally local planning departments require 1/2 an acre.

It is always best to check and get planning long before buying any products.

A normal family size house to would be able to install a much smaller wind turbine, though small these can power a couple of rooms in a home but require a higher wind speeds.

Solar

Solar energy is another popular option to power today’s home. Solar power can be used to both create electricity and heat water making it perfect for home use. Of the three energy sources listed, solar energy is probably the most commonly thought of when an everyday person thinks of green energy sources.

Solar panels can be attached to the roof of a home or to a standalone shed (depending on which product is selected). The sun is an abundant source of energy which can be harnessed and stored to either create hot water or otherwise power a home. Again, there will be an upfront monetary investment, but in the end it will more than pay for itself with energy savings in the long run.

As many reports by the UN and energy companies have reported, average power usage across the world will rapidly increase in the coming years. With temperatures increasing across the world air cooling devices could be much more common, increasing the dependence on electricity. It is important that
the houses of the future factor in for the expected changes in climate reported by the IPCC report (2004). Many leading designers are now looking to incorporate architectural design of Mediterranean countries to future proof their designs against climate change.

WDSgreenenergy.co.uk are leading specialists in green energy technologies, installing solar panels in Cardiff to reduce building dependency on fossil fuels. WDS support many efforts to future proof lots of our civic building and company premises.

This article was originally posted on Natural Environment.

A new study by Richard York of the University of Oregon shows that it isn’t that simple. Rather than displacing fossil fuels, green energy sources have proven to be mostly additive.

“Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?” published last month in Nature Climate Change, discusses what happened when alternative energy sources were introduced in countries around the world, over the past fifty years.

Contrary to the accepted wisdom that new green energy replaces fossil-fuel use, York found that on average each unit of energy use from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than a quarter of a unit of energy use from fossil-fuel sources.

The picture is worse with electricity, where each new unit generated from green sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity.

York writes:

“Based on all of the results presented above, the answer to the question presented in the title of this paper – do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels? – is yes, but only very modestly. The common assumption that the expansion of production of alternative energy will suppress fossil-fuel energy production in equal proportion is clearly wrong.”

Why don’t the new sources replace the old? York identifies two key reasons: the inertia of a huge existing fossil-fuel infrastructure, and the power and influence of the coal and oil corporations.

“The failure of non-fossil energy sources to displace fossil ones is probably in part attributable to the established energy system where there is a lock-in to using fossil fuels as the base energy source because of their long-standing prevalence and existing infrastructure and to the political and economic power of the fossil-fuel industry.”

In other words, eliminating fossil-fuel as an energy source is at least as much a social and political problem as a technical one.

“Of course all societies need energy. So, obviously, if societies are to stop using fossil fuels they must have other energy sources. However, the results from the analyses presented here indicate that the shift away from fossil fuel does not happen inevitably with the expansion of non-fossil-fuel sources, or at least in the political and economic contexts that have been dominant over the past fifty years around the world….

“The most effective strategy for curbing carbon emissions is likely to be one that aims to not only develop non-fossil energy sources, but also to find ways to alter political and economic contexts so that fossil-fuel energy is more easily displaced and to curtail the growth in energy consumption as much as possible.

“A general implication of these findings is that polices aimed at addressing global climate change should not focus principally on developing technological fixes, but should also take into account human behaviour in the context of political, economic and social systems.”

The evidence shows that simply introducing green energy isn’t enough: the introduction must be accompanied by “explicit policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions.”

The article is published in a scientific journal, where political and social conclusions can only be expressed in muted form. But Richard York’s research and conclusions reinforce the argument that he and his co-authors (John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark) made more explicitly in their recent book, The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Planet.

“We are confronting the question of a terminal crisis, threatening most life on the planet, civilization, and the very existence of future generations. … attempts to solve this through technological fixes, market magic, and the idea of a ‘sustainable capitalism’ are mere forms of ecological denial, since they ignore the inherent destructiveness of the current system of unsustainable development – capitalism.”

This article was originally posted on the Green Blog under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license.

If so, even the smallest details of your life, such as decorating your home, probably have changed. You can no longer go to the store and purchase just any home décor products. The products that you choose must have a positive impact on the environment.

Listed below are 12 eco friendly alternatives to home décor products. Being eco friendly doesn’t mean that your home can’t be beautiful.

• Out with the silk flowers! Instead of buying costly silk flowers that will only collect dust, choose to use what nature has to offer. During the spring, fill you home with the beautiful scent and color of flowers from your garden. Wild flowers also make a beautiful addition to your home décor.
• Reuse what you already have. Instead of going out and buying home décor products, reuse what you already have. A can of paint can transform something that you thought you no longer liked into something that you love. And best of all, it will be eco friendly!
• Make the commitment to never buy new. To truly be eco friendly, you must first make the commitment to never buy new. Choose to frequent garage sales or use websites that offer second hand home décor products for very little money.
• Get crafty! An eco friendly alternative to home décor products is to make your own. Use things from nature to create beautiful, one of a kind home décor products. This will be fun and will help adorn your home for very little money.
• Know where to shop. It is important that you know where to find inexpensive home décor products that will be eco friendly and also fit into your budget. Choose products that are on sale and that are made of natural materials.
• Take advantage of Pinterest. Pinterest is a new website where people share creative ideas. Sign up to receive great ideas on how you can decorate your home using eco friendly home décor. Do you have a Pinterest account? If so start researching creative ideas today.
• Choose a natural look. An eco friendly alternative to expensive home décor is to choose a natural look. Choosing a natural look for your home will allow you to decorate with things that are in more of abundance.
• Repurposed pillows. Another eco friendly option for decorating your home is to repurpose your couch pillows. Once your pillows are out of date or no longer match you décor, get creative and repurpose them yourself. Find eco friendly fabric that will be durable and last a long time.
• Decorating with baskets. Baskets are also eco friendly home décor products that are inexpensive and can add a decorative touch to your home. Made of natural materials, you can never have too many decorative baskets. Baskets can hold flowers, magazines, and even hair bows!
• Consider how it is made. When purchasing home décor products, don’t make a purchase until you consider how it is made. Choose products that will express your love for the earth, that will be friendly to you budget, and that will match the rest of your décor.
• Mosaic touches are beautiful. Choose to create your own mosaics to add a beautiful, earth friendly touch to your home. These handmade home décor products are eco friendly and very inexpensive to make. You can make mosaics for your garden or for a kitchen countertop. This is an eco friendly idea that can be used throughout your entire home.
• Natural window coverings. Instead of choosing expensive window coverings that are made from harmful products, choose to leave your window bare. If you have neighbors and want something over your windows, choose bamboo blinds that are budget friendly and will be better for the earth.

When decorating your home, you can still stick to your eco friendly lifestyle. Use the tips above to help you find eco friendly alternatives to home décor products. Many of these tips will be easy on your budget and will also be good for the earth.

This article is contributed by Victor from Jute Rug Shop, an online store to buy eco-friendly bamboo mats, jute rugs and lot more.

This article was originally posted on Natural Environment.

Solar panels in the Utah Desert. As C.G. Abbott predicted back in 1928, “In time, manufacturing will to a great extent follow the sun.”

When I was growing up in the 1970s I can’t remember anyone talking about solar power or environmental issues. So it is surprising to learn that so many forward-thinking people in the 19th and early 20th century were eloquently trying to raise the topic of the environment.

The topic is discussed far more openly today – and people really have started to listen.

Here are some great old and new quotes about man’s attempts to harness nature and produce energy.

1. Henry David Thoreau: “Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth.”
American philosophical writer Thoreau lived in the 19th century before the age of the aeroplane increased mankind’s already-sizeable carbon footprints. He would surely have approved of attempts to promote clean and renewable forms of energy.

2. Frank Shuman: “The human race must finally utilise direct sun power or revert to barbarism.”
Shuman’s quote comes from a letter he wrote to the Scientific American magazine in 1913.
The American engineer invented curved solar mirrors which reflected the heat of the Egyptian sun and heated water; producing steam to power pumps which irrigated cotton fields.

3. C.G. Abbott: “In time, manufacturing will to a great extent follow the sun.”
In 1928, American astrophysicist C.G. Abbot raised the possibility of deserts becoming great industrial areas through the development of solar power.
Today, his vision does not seem to be a mirage. The world’s biggest solar power installation is located in the Mojave Desert in the United States and a 12-square-kilometre solar farm is due to be constructed in a desert city in Morocco.

4. Albert Einstein: “The environment is everything that isn’t me.”
This concept is far simpler that e=mc squared!

5. Sir George Porter: “I have no doubt that we will be successful in harnessing the sun’s energy… if sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries ago.”
British scientist Sir George Porter made this claim in 1973. He would go on to be a major contributor to the public understanding of science through being president of the influential Royal Society scientific organisation.

6. Jimmy Carter: “Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.”
US President Jimmy Carter made this statement in a televised speech in April 1977. He might not have been a particularly successful President but this quote shows his foresight. You can’t imagine his successor, Ronald Reagan, issuing a similar warning.

7. Warren Christopher: “Environmental degradation – like overpopulation, refugees, narcotics, terrorism and organised crime – is a worldwide problem that doesn’t stop at a nation’s borders.”
Warren Christopher served as US Secretary of State under Bill Clinton and clearly saw protecting the environment as a global, rather than a national, problem.

8. Al Gore: “Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it’s a challenge to the moral imagination.”
US politician Al Gore might have lost a presidential election contest against George W. Bush Jnr but he was a lot more successful at educating the public about environmental issues.

9. Robert Redford: “I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defence of our resources is just as important as defence abroad. Otherwise what is there to defend?”
The American actor, who starred in films such as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, has long been an advocate of green living. His comments show that he is as articulate without a film script as he is with one.

10. Let’s end this article on a note of hope with a quote from Roger Tory Peterson: an educator who was one of the leading inspirations for the 20th century environmental movement. “Not all is doom and gloom. We are beginning to understand the natural world and are gaining a reverence for life – all life.”

James Christie writes for Strenson Solar: provider of solar panels in Brighton.

This article was originally posted on Natural Environment.

Mélenchon’s wants to introduce a 100% fat-cat tax, where the french state will be able to confiscate any earnings over £300,000. He also wants a return to full pensions for everyone from the age of 60, a 20% increase in the minimum wage, a cap on maximum salaries and the nationalisation of big energy companies. Mélenchon claims that his political party, the Left Front, is built around the concept of ecological planning. Something which he says can’t be found in any program of the traditional left. According to the Guardian, Mélenchon is seen as “the great hope for a banker-bashing revolution that will transform the face of Europe and reinvent leftwing politics.”

Why don’t you devote more time to ecology in your campaign?

Jean-Luc Mélenchon: Ecology occupies a place for us that it has never found in any program of the traditional left. Check: the economic program of the Left Front is built around the concept of ecological planning. There is an intuition of communism which is verified by political ecology, namely that there is a common good of humanity. If we consider only what is good for us, we will include corporatisms, but if we think about what is good for everyone, we will have a chance to get hold of an effective solution. This is what lies at the foundation of the Republic: the common good, that which is good for all. So political ecology is the reforming paradigm of communism, of socialism, and of humanist universalism. We carry its ideas because we are the voice of the social class which, by its material conditions of existence, has no particular interest other than the public interest.

You announce a referendum on nuclear power; what is the strategy of the Left Front?

Jean-Luc Melenchon: First, get out of carbon energies, which are the source of the greenhouse effect and of the climate bifurcation which will soon run its disastrous course. I realize that this is a huge technical challenge but we are human: nothing is beyond our reach, nothing can stop us! The human mind is capable of solving all problems, so it is a source of optimism and enthusiasm. Then comes the question of nuclear energy, of great importance, which poses a security problem and is thought-provoking for everyone. The issue is that of hazard assessment. That is why we favor a referendum. Anyone who thinks we should discuss this can vote for the Left Front. Finally, we can develop abundant alternative energy sources, such as the movements of the sea and geothermal processes in the Earth. With geothermal power, we produce more heat than we know how to use. What do we do with the rest? We can organize district heating, greenhouses for growing vegetables and fruits that grow out of season, and so we will no longer need to bring these from the ends of the earth. It can help us grow strawberries in Moselle in winter … It’s a double ecological gain. But to achieve this, we must create competence in many domains; we need engineers, architects, plants, etc.

How do you count on renationalizing the privatized companies?

Jean-Luc Mélenchon: Why should we do this? Because, since privatization, prices of electricity have soared (nearly 30% increase). However, we prefer to lower consumer prices by lowering energy prices rather than wages. We are therefore looking to establish a public economic pole[the word "pole" is commonly used to describe a government-established center of activity to produce certain goods or to control some activity in the pubic interest.] in order to remove from the market what can not reasonably be conceived of as a property dependent upon the law of supply and demand.

In practice, we can propose a vote on nationalization. We can also convoke the representatives of the State on the boards of directors of privatized companies (EDF, GDF Suez …) and give them instructions: this year you do not distribute dividends. Not the next year, nor the year after that, either. That is to say that during the five years of office there will be no dividends. What happens normally? Those who have private money in there are gone. Because they have invested money not by ideology or because they are interested in energy, but because it pays. So they go, and prices fall: this is a good time to nationalize. That’s how I take it. But I have other tricks up my sleeve …

Ecological planning? Why?

Jean-Luc Melenchon defines environmental planning as a “shift in demand according to our needs.” According to the program of the Front de gauche, this policy “will clarify the policies and public investment necessary to launch an ecological transition and promote sustainable human development. It will be creative of employment and a factor of social equality.” It will be based on “an ecological plan debated and voted in Parliament, together with a financial planning law.” “The purpose is ecological, the method is the planning: the organization and preparation, the introduction of long-term thinking, where finance favors the short term.”

Mélenchon was interviewed by student journalists who volunteered to produce a section of the daily french Humanite newspaper. The interview has been translated by Henry Crapo and reviewed by Bill Scoble. Only parts of the interview has been published here on Green Blog. You can read the full interview here.

This article was originally posted on the Green Blog under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license.

Supercharge your Google+ stream with prominent environmental activists, thinkers, entrepreneurs, bloggers and people who are all fighting passionately for a better and greener world. This Google+ circle contains 500 people such as the British author and journalist +Mark Lynas, +Danielle Brigida from the National Wildlife Federation, and +Brad Johnson who is the editor over at ThinkProgress Green.

Reshared post from +Alex Diaz

Do you have a green circle

So many of you have joined since the last time I shared this circle that I think it's about time to reshare it. If you don't have a green circle of your own, feel free to adopt this one and keep adding people of like mind to it. If you think you should be in it, please let us know so we can all add you.

Unfortunately, G+ doesn't let us share more than 500 at a time, and this circle is considerably bigger, so many of you were left out, and there's no way to know who it was without going one by one, which I lack the time to do right now.

Still, the share serves a high purpose, so here it is.

Google+: View post on Google+

This article was originally posted on the Green Blog under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license.

China led all countries in annual wind power gains for the third straight year, installing a jaw-dropping 18,000 megawatts for a total wind capacity of 63,000 megawatts. This country’s rise to the top of the world rankings has been swift: after doubling its wind capacity each year from 2005 to 2009, China surpassed the United States in 2010.

China’s ambitious Wind Base program will help ensure a widening lead for some years to come. Across the wind-rich northern provinces, wind mega-complexes of between 10,000 and 38,000 megawatts each are now under construction. By 2020, these “wind bases” will approach 140,000 megawatts of total installed capacity — more than the entire world had at the close of 2008.

As impressive as China’s achievements have been thus far, such rapid growth in capacity has created significant challenges. Badly needed electric grid and transmission upgrades in remote areas lag well behind wind farm completions, meaning that many turbines stand idle. This, combined with growing concerns over the safety and performance of hastily built wind farms, has led regulators to cap the allowed new wind capacity at 15,000–20,000 megawatts per year and to make improved project quality and grid access a priority.

For more data see earth-policy.org.

Now trailing well behind China, the United States installed 6,800 megawatts of wind generating capacity in 2011. The U.S. wind fleet now totals nearly 47,000 megawatts across 38 states, enough to meet the electricity demand of more than 10 million homes. Another 10,000 megawatts could be on the way in 2012. The outlook for 2013 is not as upbeat, however. If an important tax credit expires at the end of 2012, as scheduled, the industry fears a precipitous drop in new wind capacity. This would put thousands of jobs at risk in what has been a welcome success story in U.S. manufacturing.

Texas, now with 10,400 megawatts installed, has been atop the U.S. wind leaderboard since 2006. Next in line is Iowa, with 4,300 megawatts. In share of electricity generated from wind, Iowa and South Dakota lead at 20 percent each. Texas, home to 25 million people, gets 8 percent of its electricity from wind farms.

As in China, some of the best U.S. wind resources are located in remote areas and require new or upgraded transmission lines to move electricity to population centers. Many long-distance high-voltage transmission projects are under development across the United States to help address this, including four projects proposed by Clean Line Energy Partners in the Midwest, South, and West that would transport more than 17,000 megawatts of renewably generated electricity. Clean Line’s “Grain Belt Express,” for example, would allow wind-rich Kansas to export renewable electricity eastward to Missouri, Illinois, and beyond.

With close to 100,000 megawatts of wind capacity, Europe leads all regions of the world. The 9,600 megawatts of wind installed in the European Union (EU) in 2011 accounted for more than 20 percent of the bloc’s new electricity generating capacity. (Solar power provided most of the rest.) Since 2000, the EU has added a net 84,000 megawatts of wind while reducing coal and nuclear power capacity by a net 10,000 and 14,000 megawatts, respectively.

Denmark gets over a quarter of its electricity from wind, more than any other country. The government has pledged to reach 50 percent by 2020. Spain — ranking fourth in the world behind Germany in total wind capacity — gets more than 10 percent of its electricity from wind, as do Portugal and Ireland. In Germany, where wind covers 8 percent of national electricity use, four northern states each boast impressive wind power shares of more than 40 percent.

Less-mature wind markets in the EU are beginning to gain momentum. Belgium just surpassed 1,000 megawatts installed and is expected to double that capacity by the end of 2012. And Romania, which grew from only 14 megawatts in 2009 to 980 megawatts in 2011, could add another 850 megawatts in 2012.

India, whose Suzlon has become one of the world’s leading wind turbine manufacturers, installed 3,000 megawatts of wind in 2011. It remains fifth in the world wind rankings, with 16,100 megawatts total, a figure the government hopes to double within five years. Eighteen of India’s 28 states encourage wind energy development through feed-in tariffs. Widely used in Europe, these policy mechanisms require utilities to pay a premium for electricity generated with renewable energy.

Neighboring Pakistan, which just introduced a national feed-in tariff, looks to add over 1,500 megawatts to its existing 6 megawatts by 2013. Much of this expansion is slated for Sindh province, home to the country’s largest city, Karachi. Overall, Pakistan’s wind capacity potential comes in at 350,000 megawatts — enough to meet its electricity needs 10 times over.

Countries in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East are also taking advantage of their wind resources. Brazil, which leads the way in the rapidly expanding Latin American market, reached 1,500 megawatts of total wind capacity in 2011, a 63 percent increase over 2010. Wind projects representing another 7,000 megawatts already have customers contracted to purchase their electricity once they go online. In sub-Saharan Africa, the long-awaited 300-megawatt Lake Turkana wind farm is set to break ground in northwestern Kenya in April 2012. Ethiopia brought its first wind farm online in 2011, and both Nigeria and Mauritania are poised to do the same in early 2012. And in the Middle East, Turkey has grown from 20 megawatts of wind in 2005 to 1,800 megawatts in 2011, and it has five times that amount in the pipeline.

The vast majority of wind turbines operating today are on land, but offshore wind development is ramping up. Now totaling more than 4,000 megawatts, almost all of it in Europe, offshore wind generating capacity has grown fivefold since 2006. More than half of the total belongs to the United Kingdom, whose 380-megawatt Greater Gabbard offshore park is already the world’s largest. It will exceed 500 megawatts when complete. The European Wind Energy Association expects the region’s offshore generating capacity to reach 150,000 megawatts by 2030 — covering 14 percent of projected EU electricity demand.

The only operational offshore wind farms outside Europe are in Asia. China has installed more than 200 megawatts offshore since 2010, and Japan has built 25 megawatts since 2004. Ambitious near-term goals, if realized, will sharply accelerate offshore expansion: China aims for 5,000 megawatts by 2015 and South Korea plans to have 2,500 megawatts by 2019.

A frequent argument against renewable sources of electricity is that they are much too expensive to compete with nuclear or fossil fuel power plants. In the most suitable locations on land, however, wind is already often cost-competitive. Analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimate that as wind costs continue to fall, even the average wind farm will be competitive by 2016.

Global wind power capacity is projected to at least double between 2011 and 2016, as mature players build on a sizable base and as more countries enter the market. The race is on to shift from finite and costly fossil fuels to renewables swiftly enough to avoid the disastrous consequences of runaway climate change. With its long list of attractive attributes — widespread and abundant, quick to scale, climate-benign, and zero fuel cost — wind power is driving the transition to a new energy economy.

By J. Matthew Roney – Data and additional resources can be found at earth-policy.org.

This article was originally posted on the Green Blog under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license.

Total U.S. meat consumption peaked in 2007 at 55 billion pounds and has fallen each year since. In 2012, consumption is expected to drop to 52 billion pounds, the lowest level in more than a decade.

After years of increasing consumption, Americans began cutting back on beef in the 1970s as health and cost concerns about red meat pushed people toward poultry. Falling from the 1976 peak of 91 pounds, beef eating per person is projected to sink to 52 pounds in 2012, a –43-percent drop off the high. The national beef cattle herd is now smaller than it has been in any year since 1962. The record heat and drought that desiccated grazing lands and curtailed hay production in the Southern Plains in 2011 has led to further culling of herds as well as a mass movement of cattle from drought-ridden Texas to Nebraska.

Poultry, once a rarity on American dinner tables, made a meteoric rise after World War II as industrial production systems took over from small farm flocks. Until 1940, Americans consumed less than a pound of poultry per person each month. By 1990, they were eating more than a pound each week. Intake of poultry first surpassed beef in the mid-1990s and then surged ahead, only recently beginning to falter. If 2012 forecasts play out, consumption will be down to 70 pounds per person, more than 5 percent below the 2006 peak.

U.S. pork consumption has varied less dramatically across the decades, but it, too, has recently trended downward. Annual pork intake per person hit its all-time high of 54 pounds per person in 1944; 2012 consumption is projected at 44 pounds, 19 percent lower.

Higher prices combined with a weak economy have led people to put less meat in their grocery carts. Corn, the primary livestock feed, has been in high demand by fuel ethanol producers (spurred by government usage mandates), and stocks have been tight. As corn prices have increased, so has the cost of producing meat, milk, and eggs.

Cultural factors have come into play as well; attitudes about meat are changing. Rather than considering meat requisite at every dinner or an indication of wealth, many people are deliberately choosing to eat less meat than before, often citing concerns about health, the environment, and the ethics of industrial meat production. Given livestock’s large climate and resource footprints, “peak meat” is good news.

For related graphs see page 2:

This article was originally posted on the Green Blog under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license.