Impact of Money in Environment

 Paper money is lighter and cheaper to make but, on the other hand, coins last a lot longer. Let's find out which has a lower footprint. We'll also learn what's behind the Mint's stockpile of unwanted $1 coins.

National Public Radio (NPR) has recently reported on the Federal Reserve's $1 Billion stash of $1 coins that nobody  wants NPR reports that "the coins are the wasteful byproducts of a third failed congressional effort to get Americans to use one-dollar coins in everyday commerce." The current incarnation of the $1 coin features presidential portraits, George Washington through Ulysses S. Grant so far, and 20% of US coins are required to carry the image of Sacagawea.

US $1 coins weigh 8.1 grams are made from copper (88.5%) with a manganese brass cladding (6% zinc, 3.5% manganese, and 2% nickel) so the $1 billion in coins contain:

• 7,168.5 metric tons of copper, worth at least $63.2 million dollars at today's prices,
• 486 metric tons of zinc, worth $1 million,
• 283.5 metric tons of manganese, worth $1 million, and
• 162 metric tons of nickel, worth $3.5 million.

A formal Life Cycle Assesment (LCA) on the $1 coin and banknote was performed back in 2007 by students at Michigan State University, before the current stockpile was minted. Their study was intended to answer "which is better, coin or paper?" and looks at the entire life-cycle of coins and paper money, from resource extraction all the way through to recycling/disposal.

What Is The Impact Of Making The Coins?

The impact of making the coins extends far beyond the US Mint. The impact begins with resource extraction, namely mining. Mining can result in erosion, siltation of streams, contamination from leachates and processing chemicals, and many other impacts, not to mention the human impact. One of the easiest impacts to quantify is the impact on climate change through emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG) associated with each material. The GHG emissions from the copper alone can be estimated at around 14,840 metric tonnes of CO₂-equivalents, or the equivalent of 2,700 average U.S. passenger vehicles. 

What Is The Impact Of Making Dollar Bills

A US $1 banknote weighs only 0.917 grams and is not actually made from paper pulp but rather from 75% cotton and 25% linen (the fibers from a flax plant). The  environmental impacts of growing cotton are well known; herbicide/pesticide use, heavy water use, and the use of defoliant chemicals. While coins tend to last many years or even decades, the average dollar is replaced after 42 months of circulation due to wear. After this it is partially recycled into roofing material but mostly sent to the landfill. On the other hand, dollar coins remain in circulation about 17 times longer and are fully recyclable in the end.

The GHG emissions associated with the materials in a US dollar can be estimated at around 3 grams of CO₂-equivalents, so the emissions are about one fifth that of the coins. When you take into account the longer lifespan of the coins though, the benefits of coins become clear. The coins cause only one third the greenhouse gas emissions as the equivalent US Dollar bills.

What Is The Impact Of Coin Weight?

When the $1 coins are finally released their heavier weight will have a small incremental, yet potentially significant impact on transportation emissions. This is not only the case when coins are transported from the US Mint to Reserve Banks and individual retail banks, but also in the weight that they add to our own transportation footprint. The emissions from air travel, for example, are highly dependent on the weight being transported. This may seem trivial but just imagine if every American commercial air travel passenger carried just one $1 coin over the 500 million passenger-miles traveled last year. If some airline have considered urging passengers to empty their bladders prior to departure then a couple of grams per customer in excess coinage must also have an impact. In aggregate, this would result in an estimated 1,350 kilograms of extra GHG emissions! Ok, so that's only one quarter of the emissions of the average US passenger vehicle, so the US Dollar coin is still environmentally preferable.

The bottom line is that few people want heavy coins weighing down their pockets and purses, as is evidenced by the growing stockpile of unwanted coins in the US Mint's vaults. But one organization is working to change that. The Dollar Coin Alliance is trying to promote the use of dollar coins for their environmental and economic advantages. But today less and less people are using cash anyway.

Post Comment

What if Nutrition Labels Included Carbon Emissions?

A sample of label including carbon emmisons

We all know that the foods we eat carry a carbon footprint. And in fact, the diet we choose can have a huge impact on our personal footprint. But what if you could find out right on the nutrition label, next to fat, calories, and protein? It would make it easier to know your impact in whatever food you choose. The Swedes were the first to include carbon footprints on nutrition labels followed by the British, who added carbon footprints to produce.
The Global Warming Diet designed what such a label would look like. Just below the protein label you'll find the carbon footprint first by serving and then for the entire product. The label also included the place of origin and the method of transportation used to get it to you. Finally, the label included a carbon rating. This is all information crucial to individuals adjusting their food choices in order to reduce their impact.
Unfortunately, we’re not there yet but that doesn’t mean that you can’t calculate your own result. Clean metrics has a helpful food calculator which can help you estimate your food choices. Clean Metric's Food Carbon Emissions Calculator allows you to break food down into categories including beans, dairy, fish, shellfish, fruits, grains, meat, poultry, nuts, oils, fats, and vegetables. Input the transport, the weight, and how much waste the product generates. It calculates production emissions from cradle to farmgate, transportation emissions, and waste emissions. This way you can start reducing your diet's impact by choosing plant-based, minimally processed foods, produced close to home.

Post Comment

Waging War On Invasive Plant Species: Effects of Invasives Persist Even After Removal

Invasive species cost an estimated $1.4 trillion annually in their environmental and economic impacts worldwide and are second only to habitat loss as a threat to biodiversity. As scientists struggle with the challenge of controlling invasive species, the question of why some species are so successful continually arises.

Mikenia micrantha a invasive plant threatening the Chitwan National Park

Recent research conducted by Dr. Alison Bennett and Dr. Sharon Strauss at the University of California, Davis and Dr. Meredith Thomsen at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse has shed some light on this complex question. Most previous studies addressing the issue of species success have focused on the effect of individual factors, such as release from native enemies, disturbance, or allelopathy, but the interactions among these factors have not been taken into consideration. Bennett and colleagues investigated the effects of four primary mechanisms that potentially contribute to the success of invasive velvetgrass, Holcus lanatus. Their findings are published in a recent issue of the American Journal of Botany.
Bennett and colleagues focused on the effects of H. lanatus on a native daisy, Erigeron glaucus, at the Bodega Marine Reserve in Bodega Bay, California. In a series of greenhouse and field experiments, these researchers studied the effects of direct competition, changes to the soil community, indirect competition due to changes in herbivore feeding, and interference competition due to allelopathy.
They found that H. lanatus clearly hindered the germination, growth, and establishment of E. glaucus. Bennett and colleagues discovered that direct competition between the two species was responsible for much of the negative impact on E. glaucus. H. lanatus primarily effects E. glaucus due to the dense growth of H. lanatus as well as the dense litter layer and high propagule pressure associated with this invasive species.
"Direct competitive effects of H. lanatus are most important during the invasion process, and they have the greatest effect on plant community structure," Bennett said. "Reduction of the direct competitive effects of H. lanatus should aid in native plant community conservation."
However, Bennett and colleagues also found that the presence of H. lanatus altered soil communities. Due to the overwhelming effects of direct competition, this did not have a large role on the current interactions between H. lanatus and E. glaucus, but these changes likely have a negative impact on E. glaucus and other native species after H. lanatus is removed. Invasive plants are known to affect soil communities as a result of negatively affecting arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi, which can have damaging impacts on nearby native plants. Holcus lanatus changes the soil AM fungal community in a manner that reduces the benefit of association with AM fungi for E. glaucus, without reducing the benefit for itself. Bennett and colleagues observed a reduction in germination and growth of E. glaucus in soil in which H. lanatus had previously grown, demonstrating that the effects of H. lanatus may linger even after removal of the species.
"Invasive species can strongly influence plant communities while they are present via multiple mechanisms," Bennett commented, "but the effects of invasive species on plant communities can persist long after they have been removed because they can negatively alter soil communities."
This has important implications for mitigating the effects of invasive species. Bennett's future work may focus on how to revert the negative effects of invasive species on soil communities that persist long after the removal of invasive species.

Post Comment

Global Warming May Cause Higher Loss of Biodiversity Than Previously Thought

If global warming continues as expected, it is estimated that almost a third of all flora and fauna species worldwide could become extinct. Scientists from the Biodiversity and Climate Research Center (Biodiversität und Klima Forschungszentrum, BiK-F) and the SENCKENBERG Gesellschaft für Naturkunde discovered that the proportion of actual biodiversity loss should quite clearly be revised upwards: by 2080, more than 80 % of genetic diversity within species may disappear in certain groups of organisms, according to researchers in the title story of the journal Nature Climate Change. The study is the first world-wide to quantify the loss of biological diversity on the basis of genetic diversity.
Most common models on the effects of climate change on flora and fauna concentrate on "classically" described species, in other words groups of organisms that are clearly separate from each other morphologically. Until now, however, so-called cryptic diversity has not been taken into account. It encompasses the diversity of genetic variations and deviations within described species, and can only be researched fully since the development of molecular-genetic methods. As well as the diversity of ecosystems and species, these genetic variations are a central part of global biodiversity.

White branches show lost genetic lineages (no climatically suitable areas projected) in 2080 if global temperature increases by four degrees.

In a pioneering study, scientists from the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F) and the Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturkunde have now examined the influence of global warming on genetic diversity within species.
Over 80 percent of genetic variations may become extinct
The distribution of nine European aquatic insect species, which still exist in the headwaters of streams in many high mountain areas in Central and Northern Europe, was modelled. They have already been widely researched, which means that the regional distribution of the inner-species diversity and the existence of morphologically cryptic, evolutionary lines are already known.

If global warming does take place in the range that is predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), these creatures will be pushed back to only a few small refugia, e.g. in Scandinavia and the Alps, by 2080, according to model calculations. If Europe's climate warms up by up to two degrees only, eight of the species examined will survive, at least in some areas; with an increase in temperature of 4 degrees, six species will probably survive in some areas by 2080. However, due to the extinction of local populations, genetic diversity will decline to a much more dramatic extent.
According to the most pessimistic projections, 84 percent of all genetic variations would die out by 2080; in the "best case," two-thirds of all genetic variations would disappear. The aquatic insects that were examined are representative for many species of mountainous regions of Central Europe.
Slim chances in the long term for the emergence of new species and species survival
Carsten Nowak of the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F) and the Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturkunde, explains: "Our models of future distribution show that the "species" as such will usually survive. However, the majority of the genetic variations, which in each case exist only in certain places, will not survive. This means that self-contained evolutionary lineages in other regions such as the Carpathians, Pyrenees or the German Central Uplands will be lost. Many of these lines are currently in the process of developing into separate species, but will become extinct before this is achieved, if our model calculations are accurate."
Genetic variation within a species is also important for adaptability to changing habitats and climatic conditions. Their loss therefore also reduces the chances for species survival in the long term.

New approach for conservation
So the extinction of species hides an ever greater loss, in the form of the massive disappearance of genetic diversity. "The loss of biodiversity that can be expected in the course of global warming has probably been greatly underestimated in previous studies, which have only referred to species numbers," says Steffen Pauls, Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F), of the findings. However, there is also an opportunity to use genetic diversity in order to make conservation and environmental protection more efficient.
A topic that is subject to much discussion at present is how to deal with conservation areas under the conditions of climate change. The authors of the study urge that conservation areas should also be oriented to places where both a suitable habitat for the species and a high degree of inner-species genetic diversity can be preserved in the future. "It is high time," says Nowak, "that we see biodiversity not only as a static accumulation of species, but rather as a variety of evolutionary lines that are in a constant state of change. The loss of one such line, irrespective of whether it is defined today as a "species" in itself, could potentially mean a massive loss in biodiversity in the future."

Post Comment

Biodiversity Critical for Maintaining Multiple 'Ecosystem Services'

As biodiversity declines worldwide, there is concern that this will lead to declines in the services that ecosystems provide for people, such as food production, carbon storage, and water purification. But until now it has been unclear, whether just a few or in fact a large number of the species in an ecosystem are needed to provide ecosystem services.
By combining data from 17 of the largest and longest-running biodiversity experiments, scientists from universities across North America and Europe have found that previous studies have underestimated the importance of biodiversity for maintaining multiple ecosystem services across many years and places.

"Most previous studies considered only the number of species needed to provide one service under one set of environmental conditions," says Prof. Michel Loreau from McGill University's biology department who supervised the study. "These studies found that many species appeared redundant. That is, it appeared that the extinction of many species would not affect the functioning of the ecosystem because other species could compensate for their loss."
Now, by looking at grassland plant species, investigators have found that most of the studied species were important at least once for the maintenance of ecosystem services, because different sets of species were important during different years, at different places, for different services, and under different global change (e.g., climate or land-use change) scenarios. Furthermore, the species needed to provide one service during multiple years were not the same as those needed to provide multiple services during one year. "This means that biodiversity is even more important for maintaining ecosystem services than was previously thought," says Dr. Forest Isbell, the lead author and investigator of this study. "Our results indicate that many species are needed to maintain ecosystem services at multiple times and places in a changing world, and that species are less redundant than was previously thought."

The scientists involved in the study also offer recommendations for using these results to prioritize conservation efforts and predict consequences of species extinctions. "It is nice to know which groups of species promoted ecosystem functioning under hundreds of sets of environmental conditions," says Isbell, "because this will allow us to determine whether some species often provide ecosystem services under environmental conditions that are currently common, or under conditions that will become increasingly common in the future." But Michel Loreau, of McGill, adds au cautionary note: "We should be careful when making predictions. The uncertainty over future environmental changes means that conserving as much biodiversity as possible could be a good precautionary approach."

Post Comment

Scientists Harness The Power Of Plant Photosynthesis With Biophotovoltaics

If you think powering your gadgets with plants sounds like a strange idea, think again. Scientists at Cambridge University are working with designers to develop the next generation of photovoltaics that harness the biological power of plant photosynthesis. To give a visual idea of how these biophotovoltaics (BPVs) may look like, doctoral candidate Paolo Bombelli collaborated with designers Alex Driver and Carlos Peralta to produce these intriguing concept designs, ranging from a moss-powered lamp to a colony of 'solar masts'.
Some of the other ideas introduced by the team include BPV panels intended for domestic use (pictured above), as well as an offshore power plant capable of generating 5-6 watts per square meter and which also resembles something like gigantic lily pads -- with each pad actually consisting of many algae-coated panels. According to the designers, this power station would even "generate energy during the night as a result of excess electrons being stored inside the algal cells during daylight hours."

They've also designed 'solar masts' that look like vertical towers covered with algae -- a fast-growing plant -- to collect and transform sun energy. Water can also be harvested from underground to feed the plants so that the system can be self-sufficient.
Biophotovoltaic masts filled with algae can also collect the requisite rainwater instead in this alternative design.

It may be five to ten years before we might see biophotovoltaics as a competitor to conventional solar panels. But in the meantime, these plant-powered ideas will be exhibited during London Design Week 2011 from September 22 to 25, 2011.

Post Comment