Carbon neutral?

[Green Printer]

I do believe there are only 2 ways too be carbon neutral.

1st You are not in business.

2nd You are a photosynthesizing entity.

Other than that I don't believe there are any.

How about some input and thoughts!!

 

[mattf]

I do believe there are only 2 ways too be carbon neutral.

1st You are not in business.

2nd You are a photosynthesizing entity.

Other than that I don't believe there are any.

How about some input and thoughts!!

You can be, here is how:

1) As a printer buy wind, solar or geothermal power.
2) Buy all your equipment from sustainable initiatives and insure that there is no piece of equipment that has a single ounce of fossil fuel influence.
3) Insure that all your suppliers are using renewable everything. Resources, transportation, documentation and so on.
4) Buy all materials that are from renewable initiatives.
5) Make sure there is nothing in your plant that was made, used or produced with fossil fuel energy.

You should be set then right?

Right?

Right!??!?!

Yeah that probably won't happen....

 

[prepressguru]

I think the first option you mention is very doable. Imagine offloading some of the power to run a press from the grid. It's a start anyway.

 

[Green Printer]

You can be, here is how:

1) As a printer buy wind, solar or geothermal power.
2) Buy all your equipment from sustainable initiatives and insure that there is no piece of equipment that has a single ounce of fossil fuel influence.
3) Insure that all your suppliers are using renewable everything. Resources, transportation, documentation and so on.
4) Buy all materials that are from renewable initiatives.
5) Make sure there is nothing in your plant that was made, used or produced with fossil fuel energy.

You should be set then right?

Right?

Right!??!?!

Yeah that probably won't happen....

All of these together could be the best combination. The problem is that you cannot buy anything that has not been touched by fossil fuel. From raw materials to manufacturing to distribution there is always fossil fuel used.

You can have a much smaller carbon footprint using all of the above but it is virtually impossible to be carbon neutral.

 

[mattf]

All of these together could be the best combination. The problem is that you cannot buy anything that has not been touched by fossil fuel. From raw materials to manufacturing to distribution there is always fossil fuel used.

You can have a much smaller carbon footprint using all of the above but it is virtually impossible to be carbon neutral.

I agree, at this point in time fossil fuels are ingrained into our society because of its relative cheapness. We are use to the technology and the ease of use and thats why we keep using it. There are probably other "political" reasons, but those get way to overblown at times.

I also agree that buying in to these kinds of initiatives to become carbon neutral is always helpful. Whatever the amount doesn't matter, as long as people take the time and the effort to put forth steps that create the results needed to lessen their footprint. Every business with one solar panel can save at times a lot in the longterm, or just one small wind turbine can also be an opportunity. Put one of these on ALL businesses no matter their size and there will be a significant improvement within how much carbon emissions we release into the atmosphere.

Any little bit helps, hell I don't throw as much away in the garbarge as I used to, and I recycle my shredded bills are ferret shavings

 

[alan4color]

Man stopped being carbon neutral when he discovered meat tasted better cooked over an open flame.
I wonder if he took flack from his neighbor in the next cave who was content with fruit and nuts?

 

[KevinC@EFI]

You can be, here is how:

1) As a printer buy wind, solar or geothermal power.
2) Buy all your equipment from sustainable initiatives and insure that there is no piece of equipment that has a single ounce of fossil fuel influence.
3) Insure that all your suppliers are using renewable everything. Resources, transportation, documentation and so on.
4) Buy all materials that are from renewable initiatives.
5) Make sure there is nothing in your plant that was made, used or produced with fossil fuel energy.

Hi Mattf -

As a supplier, as much as our focus is on developing and selling products with the smallest environmental impact we can while still providing the performance you need, you're right that no product is completely carbon-neutral. We can also do as much for the environment by helping eliminate waste in the pressroom through better performance as we can by reducing chemistry in plate development - so we're taking both paths.

After that though, what do we do about the remaining carbon impact? We can purchase carbon offsets to make the product "carbon neutral" in theory, but does that have enough credibility today to be effective? It also adds costs to the product - costs that have to be justified by the business benefits of marketing a carbon-neutral product, or costs that will have to be passed down the chain to the printer, and ultimately onto your customers too.

I hope our society gets to the point where the benefits of doing such things outweigh the costs, and people are willing to spend the extra money to achieve environmental goals. Are we there yet? I think we're close, but with the current economy it's a tough sell.

Thoughts from anyone?

 

[gordo]

Man stopped being carbon neutral when he discovered meat tasted better cooked over an open flame.
I wonder if he took flack from his neighbor in the next cave who was content with fruit and nuts?

Not just the cooking of the meat.

From Time magazine:

In a 2006 report, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions – by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock takes up a lot of space – nearly one-third of the earth's entire landmass and results in trees being cut down to make space for pasture or farmland to grow animal feed. In Latin America, the FAO estimates that some 70% of former forest cover has been converted for grazing. Lost forest cover heats the planet, because trees absorb CO2 while they're alive – and when they're burned or cut down, the greenhouse gas is released back into the atmosphere.
Then there's manure – all that animal waste generates nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that has 296 times the warming effect of CO2. And of course, there is cow flatulence: as cattle digest grass or grain, they produce methane gas, of which they expel up to 200 L a day. Given that there are 100 million cattle in the U.S. alone, and that methane has 23 times the warming impact of CO2, the gas adds up.
In 2008, global meat production is expected to top 280 million tons, and that figure could nearly double by 2050.
Producing all that meat will do more than just warm the world; it will also raise pressure on land resources. The FAO estimates that about 20% of the planet's pastureland has been degraded by grazing animals, and increased demand for meat means increased demand for animal feed – much of the world's grain production is fed to animals rather than to humans. The expanded production of meat has been facilitated by industrial feedlots, which bleed antibiotics and other noxious chemicals. And of course, the human health impact of too much meat can be seen in everything from bloated waistlines in America to rising rates of cardiovascular disease in developing nations, where heart attacks were once as rare as a T-bone steak.
Giving up the average 176 lb. of meat consumed per person in the U.S. a year is one of the greenest lifestyle changes you can make as an individual. The geophysicists Gidon Eschel and Pamela Martin have estimated that if every American reduced meat consumption by just 20%, the greenhouse gas savings would be the same as if we all switched from a normal sedan to a hybrid Prius.

best, gordo

my print blog here: Quality In Print

 

[prepressguru]

Hmm interesting Gordo.. but I've never seen smog hovering around a farm.

 

[gordo]

Hmm interesting Gordo.. but I've never seen smog hovering around a farm.

Apparently methane does not make smog.

From the Fresno (California) Bee (snipped for space:

Cows rival cars as smog producers

The Valley's 2.6 million cows emit tons of gases that turn into pollution, but it's difficult to quantify just how much.
Indeed, plumes of gases waft from San Joaquin Valley dairies where prodigious amounts of livestock waste are stockpiled. By 2005, cows will lead cars in venting this so-called "reactive organic gas," a main ingredient of smog.
Millions of tons of waste from the 1.1 million dairy cows in the Valley, like these at a Kings County dairy near Hanford, are flushed into large, uncovered lagoons. Until the 1990s, nobody knew that the waste created gases that add to the Valley's air problem. In the Valley's thick, tenacious fog, tiny particles form as ammonia and combine with other chemicals. The Valley's No. 1 source of ammonia is the dairy industry.
These little ammonia-based specks hang in the fog for hours and easily evade the body's defense mechanisms, penetrating deep into people's lungs. Such tiny particles are now being linked to high death rates and heart problems.

The Valley is home to an estimated 1.1 million dairy cows, which is about one-third of the size of the human population here. But if you throw in seasonal grazing herds, beef cattle and other bovine classes, more than 2.6 million cows live in the Valley at certain times of the year.
An adult cow expels 20 times more waste per day than a human.
The waste is concentrated in dairies where many cows are congregated in fairly small areas. Millions of tons of waste usually are flushed into large, uncovered lagoons where it decomposes. Until the 1990s, nobody knew it was an air problem.
The smog-making gases include ethyl alcohol, ethyl amine, isoprophyl alcohol, propyl acetate and trimethyl amine.
Here's how the wintertime particles form: Ammonia combines with nitric acid, which forms from pollutants called nitrogen oxides that come from diesel trucks and cars. The combination makes tiny, potent specks known as ammonium nitrate.
Scientists call it PM2.5, which means particulate matter 2.5 microns wide. For comparison, a human hair is about 60 microns wide.
Medical science considers these particles a significant health hazard. The state Air Resources Board suspects 66,000 tons of ammonia annually rising from dairies is the main reason.

best, gordo

 

[mattf]

Apparently methane does not make smog.

From the Fresno (California) Bee (snipped for space:

Cows rival cars as smog producers

The Valley's 2.6 million cows emit tons of gases that turn into pollution, but it's difficult to quantify just how much.
Indeed, plumes of gases waft from San Joaquin Valley dairies where prodigious amounts of livestock waste are stockpiled. By 2005, cows will lead cars in venting this so-called "reactive organic gas," a main ingredient of smog.
Millions of tons of waste from the 1.1 million dairy cows in the Valley, like these at a Kings County dairy near Hanford, are flushed into large, uncovered lagoons. Until the 1990s, nobody knew that the waste created gases that add to the Valley's air problem. In the Valley's thick, tenacious fog, tiny particles form as ammonia and combine with other chemicals. The Valley's No. 1 source of ammonia is the dairy industry.
These little ammonia-based specks hang in the fog for hours and easily evade the body's defense mechanisms, penetrating deep into people's lungs. Such tiny particles are now being linked to high death rates and heart problems.

The Valley is home to an estimated 1.1 million dairy cows, which is about one-third of the size of the human population here. But if you throw in seasonal grazing herds, beef cattle and other bovine classes, more than 2.6 million cows live in the Valley at certain times of the year.
An adult cow expels 20 times more waste per day than a human.
The waste is concentrated in dairies where many cows are congregated in fairly small areas. Millions of tons of waste usually are flushed into large, uncovered lagoons where it decomposes. Until the 1990s, nobody knew it was an air problem.
The smog-making gases include ethyl alcohol, ethyl amine, isoprophyl alcohol, propyl acetate and trimethyl amine.
Here's how the wintertime particles form: Ammonia combines with nitric acid, which forms from pollutants called nitrogen oxides that come from diesel trucks and cars. The combination makes tiny, potent specks known as ammonium nitrate.
Scientists call it PM2.5, which means particulate matter 2.5 microns wide. For comparison, a human hair is about 60 microns wide.
Medical science considers these particles a significant health hazard. The state Air Resources Board suspects 66,000 tons of ammonia annually rising from dairies is the main reason.

best, gordo

Gordo, good explanation on how this all plays out.

And yeah guru, you might not see it but does that mean its not there? Of course it is, look at Carbon Monoxide, you don't see it creeping on you until your falling asleep and a loud noise fills the house.

Now think of this and lets put in another perspective. Just because cows have been shown and proven to expel more greenhouse gases then humans doesn't mean its not our problem. Why are there so many cows in the first place? As described in the articles listed above, the cows are of course bread by humans to produce milk, meat and the like. Meat is highly subsidized in America, which in turns make a push for farmers to produce more cows to get more meat/money which in turns make more cows farting.

Root cause analysis is fun. How can we lessen their emissions? A few ways:

1) Don't breed as many cows (good luck)
2) Harness their gases into something that can be useful (California is already starting to doing this)

California's First Cow Power Project Opened

3) Change the cows genes so they don't fart as much (You'd be surprised, people have thought up worse...)

 

[meddington]

Giving up the average 176 lb. of meat consumed per person in the U.S. a year is one of the greenest lifestyle changes you can make as an individual.

Americans give up meat? There must be another solution...possibly involving large corks ...or perhaps bovine-grade Beano.

 

[mattf]

Americans give up meat? There must be another solution...possibly involving large corks ...or perhaps bovine-grade Beano.

more efficient cows? THATS AWESOME!

 

[KevinC@EFI]

more efficient cows? THATS AWESOME!

I kid you not - I watched a TV program the other night where some researchers strapped an inflatable bag to cows, plumbed directly to one of their stomachs where the methane was generated, and they collected the gas. Amazing what is done in the name of science these days.

Poor cows... looked like a blimp with a cow hanging under it. If I recall correctly, methane is lighter than air, so it's not far off the truth!

Enjoy the weekend!
Kevin.

 

[lkl7255]

Never did I think I'd learn so much about cows reading posts in PrintPlanet But it IS very interesting!

Maybe everyone should just go back and use a Letterpress?
No electricity required

Although I don't know how environmentally friendly the manufacturing process for them is (was)...

 

[gordo]

Issues worth ruminating on.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

gordo

my print blog here: Quality In Print

 

[otherthoughts]

I do believe there are only 2 ways too be carbon neutral.

1st You are not in business.

2nd You are a photosynthesizing entity.

Other than that I don't believe there are any.

How about some input and thoughts!!

Firstly, I would like to point out that being Carbon Neutral is not a concern of, nor a problem to be solved by any other creature on this Planet save we Humans.

Which begs the question, why is it that being Carbon Neutral is strictly a Human concern and why are we so different than all the other creatures on the planet?

Which begs another question, has Mankind always been so different from all the other creatures on the planet in regards to being Carbon Neutral?

I don't think so, being Carbon Neutral has only effectively become Mankind's concern and responsibility during the last century.

Was there any business prior to the Carbon Neutral problem, this being a rhetorical question only my friends.

If we are seeking a guide to go by for the answers to our Carbon Neutral problems, we might simply reflect upon what worked for Mankind only a century ago, before this "Carbon Neutral problem" became a problem. Back when Mankind wasn't so different from all the other creatures inhabiting the Planet regarding Carbon Neutrality . Go back in History as far as you need to look.

Despite this fact, which is true for every single one of us. Our complete and unabridged lineages of ancestors, save for the most recent two or three of our Ancestors and of course ourselves. In essence, had always existed in a Carbon Neutral way, never ever raising this issue. This lifestyle, our own forefathers enjoyed, has nowadays become an unthinkable horror, an obscenity in so few generations

If this was good enough for my own Ancestors, just a few generations back, is this good enough for Me? I mean along with all that Mankind has learned in the intervening Century which my Ancestors had yet to learn?

Am I willing to wager the future of the Planet's ecosystem's, while representing all the other species on the planet that are unable to cast their own votes? Just as most U.S. Congressman, acting in their own behalves typically do? Simply because we are not willing to live our lives as the vast majority of our very own ancestors had? Despite the fact that we are equipped with all this knowledge that we've acquired over and above our own Great Great Grandparent's?

In summary, if we all become willing to live just as our own ancestors had, the rest is a piece of cake! The knowledge we possess over and above our Ancestor's will make our lives seem effortless in comparison to their's. Just to be clear, I mean to include the human population differences that exist between us and our ancestor's as well.

For what it's worth.
Otherthoughts

 

[Green Printer]

Carbon trading?

The greatest money making scam ever. Bernie Maddoff got caught. Will the carbon traders be next.?

Bless me father for I have carbon sinned. For your penance give this group $5,000.00 and your carbon sins are forgiven.

 

[rbailleu]

this is going too far. people have gas. you should see how much gas I create after eating too many donuts. made from sugar & flour. lets tax my flatulance. and give the money to a windmill so I can pay more for windpower than nuclear. they want to regulate dust emission on the farm now. so as the dirty flies up while planting we have to find away to make the dust fall back to the earth with out being breathed in by anyone nearby. you know what, its a farm the only one around is the guy planting. where will this crap(pardon the usage) stop. I can see making things more efficient, I can even see collecting animal waste in enclosed facilities and generating electricity (my cousin does this already) but taxing cow flatulance whats next. giving tax money to banks I guess. when did i move to crazy world. you know I have been in wisconsin and they have a few cows and no smog. in fact most of wisconsin is very clean and nice. the problems are in the cities where the cars, and manufacturing are located. if the environmentalist keep it up we wont have any food to eat. how are you going to eat when we cant grow corn, wheat, rice, lettuce, potatos. what do you think that make fertilizer from, It used to be manure, not anymore they use oil to make anhydrous. I sure hope the evironmental people are using Ethanol in their hybrid. the hybrid with petroleum based tires. petroleum based plastics.

I like steak, cheese and milk. if you don't, thats fine but don't tax my cow.
My cousin does sell his carbon offsets for the methane digester. what a scam.

 

[mattf]

Firstly, I would like to point out that being Carbon Neutral is not a concern of, nor a problem to be solved by any other creature on this Planet save we Humans.

Which begs the question, why is it that being Carbon Neutral is strictly a Human concern and why are we so different than all the other creatures on the planet?

Which begs another question, has Mankind always been so different from all the other creatures on the planet in regards to being Carbon Neutral?

I don't think so, being Carbon Neutral has only effectively become Mankind's concern and responsibility during the last century.

Was there any business prior to the Carbon Neutral problem, this being a rhetorical question only my friends.

If we are seeking a guide to go by for the answers to our Carbon Neutral problems, we might simply reflect upon what worked for Mankind only a century ago, before this "Carbon Neutral problem" became a problem. Back when Mankind wasn't so different from all the other creatures inhabiting the Planet regarding Carbon Neutrality . Go back in History as far as you need to look.

Despite this fact, which is true for every single one of us. Our complete and unabridged lineages of ancestors, save for the most recent two or three of our Ancestors and of course ourselves. In essence, had always existed in a Carbon Neutral way, never ever raising this issue. This lifestyle, our own forefathers enjoyed, has nowadays become an unthinkable horror, an obscenity in so few generations

If this was good enough for my own Ancestors, just a few generations back, is this good enough for Me? I mean along with all that Mankind has learned in the intervening Century which my Ancestors had yet to learn?

Am I willing to wager the future of the Planet's ecosystem's, while representing all the other species on the planet that are unable to cast their own votes? Just as most U.S. Congressman, acting in their own behalves typically do? Simply because we are not willing to live our lives as the vast majority of our very own ancestors had? Despite the fact that we are equipped with all this knowledge that we've acquired over and above our own Great Great Grandparent's?

In summary, if we all become willing to live just as our own ancestors had, the rest is a piece of cake! The knowledge we possess over and above our Ancestor's will make our lives seem effortless in comparison to their's. Just to be clear, I mean to include the human population differences that exist between us and our ancestor's as well.

For what it's worth.
Otherthoughts

Two words. Good luck.

Our society is not based upon a mindset of going backwards in terms of advancement and technology. The whole idea of society is to advance in thought, process, mechanics and the like. We advance these ideas so our society might become a better place.

Classic example: If we lived like our ancestors we would be living only to our 40's and marrying at 13. Not saying its wrong, but its a different mindset. Our life expectancy now is from 70's-80's and society as a whole wishes for a longer and healthier life. There is a reason before the industrial revolution there was only a few hundred million people on this world. Technology was not there to help us along in our daily lives as well as our well being. We only had a small grasp of what it could do, and today we have broadened that concept to feats my father and his father could not even imagine.

Moving backwards to "what works" will not solve what must be done. We have done the damage and we have created this society in the way it was shaped. We have to keep moving forward to insure our children and their children have a world that is liveable, sustainable and ripe for generations to come. Going backwards will only cause new problems, just like going forward will as well. I'd rather create something new and exciting that will help the world move forward in its advancement then go back to the stone ages.

Political views and mindsets have to change, and I think they will with this new administration. Granted, its the same people who ran the government back in the 90's, but the ideas that people want to hear and wish to interact with are changing. Lets just hope it changes for the better.