Airline in first biofuel flight

Sir Richard and a coconut hail the "historic" flight



The first flight by a commercial airline to be powered partly by biofuel has taken place.

A Virgin Atlantic jumbo jet has flown between London's Heathrow and Amsterdam using fuel derived from a mixture of Brazilian babassu nuts and coconuts.

Environmentalists have branded the flight a publicity stunt and claim biofuel cultivation is not sustainable.

Earlier this month, Airbus tested another alternative fuel - a synthetic mix of gas-to-liquid.
Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson said the flight marked a "vital breakthrough" for the entire airline industry.

"This pioneering flight will enable those of us who are serious about reducing our carbon emissions to go on developing the fuels of the future," he said.

But he said fully commercial biofuel flights were likely to use feedstocks such as algae rather than the mix used on the passenger-less flight.

Virgin's Boeing 747 had one of its four engines connected to an independent biofuel tank that it said could provide 20% of the engine's power. The three other engines were capable of powering the plane on conventional fuel had there been a problem.

The company said the babassu tree, native to Brazil, and the coconuts did not compete with staple food sources and came from existing mature plantations. Both products are commonly used in cosmetics and household paper products.

The technology is still being manufactured by companies GE and Boeing, but Virgin believes airlines could routinely be flying on plant power within 10 years.

Gimmick?

Kenneth Richter, of Friends of the Earth, said the flight was a "gimmick", distracting from real solutions to climate change.

"If you look at the latest scientific research it clearly shows biofuels do very little to reduce emissions," he said.

"At the same time we are very concerned about the impact of the large-scale increase in biofuel production on the environment and food prices worldwide.

"What we need to do is stop this mad expansion of aviation. At the moment it is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases in the UK, and we need to stop subsidising the industry."
Greenpeace's chief scientist, Dr Doug Parr, labelled the flight a "high-altitude greenwash" and said less air travel was the only answer.

Airbus ran its test using the world's largest passenger jet, the A380.
The three-hour flight from Filton near Bristol to Toulouse on 1 February was part of an ongoing research programme.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7261214.stm

Algae Biofuel to be Used in Virgin Atlantic 747 Test Flight

Great story about Virgin Atlantic and biofuels from algae from http://greenoptions.com/

More on Biodiesel

Lately there has been an anti BioDiesel email floating around the net, (and yes Obama is a muslim right?) and my work associate is a huge NRDC fan so I was particularly intrigued when I ran into a thread about Biodiesel and what they think about it. What's so interesting is that their objections to Bio seem to be make absolutely no sense when you read the rest of the article. Objecting to something good because there isn't enough of it, and it works seemlessly with what's already in place, is hardly an objection. We'll keep digging to try and find out what's really behind this new petition.

"Thank you for contacting NRDC. While we truly admire greasel and biodiesel users, NRDC staff have reservations over all kinds of biodiesel, elaborated on more in the factsheet I have attached.

In brief:
a) It's prone to being massively diluted ("blended") by regular dirty diesel.
b) There's not enough of a feedstock supply to make a big dent in overall diesel use in the US.
c) Some feedstocks, particularly farmed oils, can have serious negative impacts to the environment. Consider the use of GMOs, pesticides, fertilizers and polluting diesel equipment in farming those oils, plus other environmental problems related to farming: Erosion, mono-crops, etc. Given the above issues, we don't support biodiesel as a feasible solution to the problems caused by diesel. Instead, NRDC advocates for it in it's pure form (whether greasel or biodiesel) in certain niches: marine, remote locations, and exceptionally responsible passenger car owners. <<>> Again, thanks for writing to NRDC and for your interest in our work. Amy Greer NRDC Membership & Public Education Fact Sheet

Below October 2002 NRDC Backgrounder Biodiesel: Cleaner But Not Necessarily Clean Enough Contact: Diane Bailey – (415) 777-0220 Biodiesel, in its 100% pure form, is a relatively non-toxic, biodegradable, renewable fuel that burns much more cleanly than regular diesel and works in almost any diesel engine. Unfortunately, biodiesel is usually blended with 80% standard diesel fuel and only 20% “bio” fuel, which drastically reduces its environmental benefits. In some cases, biodiesel contains as little as 2% “bio” fuel, yielding negligible air quality benefits, yet allowing for ‘greenwashing’ by fleets that use it to avoid using cleaner alternative fuels (like natural gas) or advanced technologies (like hybrid-electrics).

Pure biodiesel has a role in the movement toward cleaner fuels, particularly in boats and farm equipment. However, biodiesel is not a promising replacement for advanced technologies and alternative fuels in centrally-fueled urban fleet vehicles, such as transit and school buses, nor is it a substitute for using the most advanced emission controls to reduce particulate matter and other pollutants from most other diesel engines. Biodiesel can be made from many feedstocks. Biodiesel is processed from vegetable oils, fats or greases, including used grease, such as waste from deep-fat fryers at McDonalds.

Current waste grease and inedible animal tallow supplies are enough to produce almost one billion gallons of biodiesel,1 and U.S. soy production is enough to produce almost 2 billion gallons of biodiesel. However, this is only a fraction of the over 36 billion gallons of diesel sold in 2000 throughout the U.S. Cooking oils, such as soy, canola, tallow, mustard, restaurant greases, etc. are processed to remove the fatty acids with methanol and a catalyst. The byproduct is glycerine (commonly used in soap). Roughly one bushel of soybeans produces 1.5 gallons of biodiesel. Biodiesel fuel is only as clean as the amount of the “bio” in the blended fuel. An evaluation of potential health effects and emissions by the Southwest Research Institute showed that pure biodiesel may reduce exposure to cancer-causing contaminants by over 90% compared to regular diesel.5 But when B20 biodiesel is used, the emissions benefits are sharply reduced. Because pure biodiesel contains no sulfur, engines that use it can take advantage of the most advanced diesel emission controls to reduce particulates and smog-forming gases even further. Pure biodiesel produces 78% less carbon dioxide than conventional diesel. Actual tailpipe emissions of CO2 are higher with biodiesel, but when the recycling factor (from the CO2 that soy or other crops absorb) is considered, the overall CO2 decreases. BIODIESEL EMISSIONS COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL DIESEL Pollutant B100 B20 Hydrocarbons -56% -11% Carbon Monoxide -43% -13% Particulate Matter -55% -18% NOx +6% +1% Air Toxics -60-90% -12-20% Mutagenicity -80-90% -20% Source: U.S. DOE, National Renewable Energy Lab, Factsheet # DOE/GO-102000-1048, May 2000

http://www.biodieselnow.com/forums/p/347/515.aspx

10 Ways to Avoid Making Suspect Green Advertising Claims

Global warming is certainly one of the hottest topics today. Individuals are rightly concerned with the fate of our planet. And governments are increasingly taking steps to address this, and other significant, environmental problems.

Businesses are increasingly getting into the act and offering consumers "green" alternatives, like the Toyota Prius, green home environmental products, organic and natural personal care products, environmentally preferable building products, green advertising agencies, and other green products and services.

It is important that consumers are able to rely on the advertiser's "green" advertising claims.

This article lists 10 questions that you should ask when you are preparing an advertisement that highlights what you believe gives your product a "green" advantage. Your goal is to proclaim your product's environmental advantages while avoiding inadvertently making any green claims that you can't back up. The areas covered by this article include substantiation, general versus specific environmental claims, exaggerated or overstated environmental attributes or benefits, and many other green advertising topics. While it is only a starting point, we believe that it will give you 10 Ways to Avoid Making Suspect Green Advertising Claims:

1. Can You Substantiate All of the Express or Implied Environmental Claims Appearing in Your Advertisement?

If you're an advertiser who make express or implied claims about the attributes of your product, package or service, you must be able to substantiate all of your advertising claims. When it comes to green advertising claims, this means that you may be required to have competent and reliable scientific evidence (e.g., tests, analyses, research, studies) to back up such claims. You might consider mentioning such tests in the ad itself (if it's in print or on the Internet). Remember, however, that a consumer may very well write or call you to ask if such information is available for him or her to read. So be sure to have that information on hand at all times.

2. Can a Consumer Tell If the Green Advertising Claim Refers to the Product,the Packaging or Both?

When you make a green advertising claim, you should be aware that a consumer reading that claim should be able to figure out whether you are talking about the product, the packaging or both. If not, chances are that the Federal Trade Commission could consider the claim to be false or deceptive. Under FTC's Environmental Guides, "An environmental marketing claim should specify whether it refers to the product, the packaging or both, or just to a component of the product or its packaging." Here's an example: A cereal box is labeled "recycled package." The package consists of a paperboard box with a wax paper bag inside holding the cereal. But what does the advertiser mean by this claim? Does it refer to the box only? Does it refer to only the bag? Or does it refer to both? This type of claim is ambiguous. And the claim is deceptive if only the box is recycled. If the box alone were recycled, a non-deceptive claim would have qualified so as to say, for example, "recycled box."

3. Does Your Advertisement Exaggerate or Overstate Environmental Attributes or Benefits?
Let's take the example of a banner ad on a calendar publisher's website that says, "Our Calendars now contain 50% more recycled content than before." It sounds like these calendars provide a great environmental benefit. However, lat's say that the publisher merely had increased the recycled content of its calendars from 2% recycled material to 3% recycled material. So while the claim is technically correct, the banner ad is likely to convey the false impression that the use of recycled material was increased significantly. If you read the ad carefully, the question arises, just how much recycled content was in this product before? If the advertiser doesn't answer that question with specificity, a red flag is raised that the claim may be an exaggeration.

4. Do You Make any Comparative Environmental Claims in Your Advertisement?

Let's use the same calendar publishing company as above. But this time the advertiser places this statement on the front of its 2008 calendar: "50% more recycled content" Again, it does sound like the calendar offers a significant environmental benefit. However, this claim is ambiguous because there's no way to tell whether the claim is a comparison to the publisher's 2007 calendar or to a competitor's calendar. To eliminate this ambiguity, the advertiser should have made the basis for the comparison clear, by saying, for example, "50% more recycled content than our 2007 calendar"
5. Does Your Advertisement Make a General Environmental Claim?
Examine your proposed advertisement closely to determine whether your ad is making a general environmental claim or a specific claim. Specific environmental claims are easier to substantiate than general claims. Moreover, they are less likely to be deceptive. An unqualified general claim of environmental benefit may convey the notion that your product has far-reaching environmental benefits, when it doesn't.

Let's take the example of the cloth shopping bag that is labeled "eco-friendly." This claim may or may not be deceptive. This claim would be deceptive if it leads a consumer to believe that the bag has environmental benefits that the advertiser cannot back up. It would not be deceptive if the "eco-friendly" label was followed by clear and prominent language limiting the "friendly" representation to the product attribute for which it could be substantiated, and if the context didn't create any other deceptive implications. A qualification for the "eco-friendly" claim--assuming that the advertiser can substantiate this claim--would be: "This cloth bag is reusable and is made from 100% recycled fibers."

6. Does Your Product Label Contain Eco-Seals,Seals-of-Approval or Certifications?
Are you able to utilize environmental seals-of-approval, eco-seals and certifications from third-party organizations on your product?. Such seals and certifications imply that your product is environmentally superior to other products. However, be aware that such broad superiority claims aren't easy for advertisers to substantiate. This will require significant research on your part before you can use such seals and make such claims.

Keep in mind that FTC analyzes third-party certification claims to make sure that they're substantiated and not deceptive. Third-party certification does not insulate an advertiser from Commission scrutiny or eliminate an advertiser's obligation to ensure for itself that the claims communicated by the certification are substantiated. Here is an example: "Great Paper Company sells photocopy paper whose packaging has a seal-of-approval from the No Chlorine Products Association that states `totally chlorine-free paper.' An explanation under the seal-of-approval says the paper production process did not use pulp produced with chlorine or compounds containing chlorine as bleaching agents. Using the highest industry standards, the No Chlorine Products Association certifies that products are chlorine-free only after industry experts have conducted comprehensive mill audits. The claim is unlikely to be deceptive." (See FTC Publication, "Complying with the Environmental Marketing Guides".)

7. Do Your Ads Make any "Degradable," "Biodegradable" or "Photodegradable" Claims?
These claims mean that the materials will break down and return to nature within a reasonably short time after customary disposal. What a "reasonably short time" is depends on where the product is disposed. For example, in landfills, where most garbage is taken, materials degrade very slowly, if at all. So it's difficult to substantiate a claim that a product normally disposed of in a landfill is "biodegradable," "degradable" or "photodegradable." However, biodegradable claims for products that go down the drain, like detergents and shampoos, may be substantiated if the product will degrade in wastewater treatment systems. A "reasonably short period of time" for biodegradability of products like detergents and shampoos that go into the wastewater treatment systems would be about the same time that it takes for sewage to be processed in the wastewater treatment systems.

8. Does Your Ad Make "Compostable" Claims?
"Compostable" claims are appropriate on products or packages that will break down, or become part of usable compost (e.g., mulch), in a safe and timely manner in home compost piles. For composting, a "timely manner" is approximately the same time that it takes organic compounds, like leaves, grass, and food stuff, to compost. Claims for a product that's "compostable" in a municipal or institutional composting facility - but that won't break down quickly enough to be compostable in home compost piles - may need to be qualified to avoid deception about the limited availability of municipal or institutional composting facilities. Consumers are likely to understand "compostable" claims to mean that the product can be composted at home or in their community. If it isn't, the "compostable" claim should be accompanied by an explanation. For example, a lawn and leaf bag might say, "Appropriate composting facilities may not be available in your area."

9. Are "Recyclable Claims" Made on Your Product Labels or in Your Ads?
These ad claims mean that the products can be collected, separated or recovered from the solid waste stream and used again, or reused in the manufacture or assembly of another package or product through an established recycling program. A claim of recyclability should make clear to consumers whether it refers to the product, the package or both. Unless the entire product or package is recyclable, the claim should specifically indicate which parts of the product or package are recyclable. If only minor or incidental components aren't recyclable, the claim needn't be qualified.

10. Are there "Please Recycle" Claims on Your Products or Packages?
Consumers interpret the phrase "Please Recycle" on products or packages to mean that the product or package is "recyclable." Accordingly, the same guidelines for making "recyclable" claims apply to "Please Recycle" claims.

Do 'green' Web sites really make a difference?

In Seattle we are well-versed in terms like "carbon footprint." And now you can go to Web sites to donate money to help offset your carbon use. But do these Web sites really make a difference or just alleviate guilt?

Mary Jane Parks does her part to help the environment. She turns her lights off and walks instead of driving as much as possible. "I buy energy efficient appliances and I take a reusable canvas bag to the grocery store," said Parks. And she goes the extra mile too trying to minimize the damage she causes through a "carbon offset." "A carbon offset is something that represents a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions," said Parks. To get one, you go online to environmental Web sites and donate money to clean energy projects. Your money could be invested in wind farms and forest renewal.

You can calculate your carbon use at sites like atmosclear.org then "undo" your CO2 damage and donate for your family members too. It feels good, but how do you know it's really making the earth greener? "Consumers can't tell they actually received an offset because it's invisible," said Jennifer Martin, Center for Resource Solutions. "They can't hold it or see it." And that's a problem as some see it, because there is no government oversight making sure the donations go to what they say they will. "I think, at a minimum, regulation should enforce that when companies are selling products, where they're making claims about greenhouse gas performance or climate neutrality of a product, that there's real data and verification to back that up," said Martin.

Now for the first time, the Federal Trade Commission is looking into the new industry.
"What we want to do is make sure that we give clear guidance on how to truthfully market these products and make the rules of the road clear so the market can function effectively for consumers," said James Kohm, Federal Trade Commission.

Terrapass, one of the largest carbon offset companies, welcomes the change. "I think it will add a lot to consumer confidence," said Erik Blanchford, Terrapass. "I'd like to see a nice simple set of disclosure rules so that consumers know consistently what they're paying for." Until guidelines are established, experts say look for verification from an independent third party such as the Center for Resource Solutions.

This from KING TV Seattle.

Related Content CarbonCounter.org NativeEnergy.com Terrapass.com CarbonFund.org GreenTagUSA.org BetterWorldClub.com ClimateTrust.org E-Bluehorizons.com SustainableTravelInternational.org Atmosclear.org

"Greenwashing"

My friend Barbara and I were talking politics and environmental issues in a bar on Queen Anne the other night. She said she'd just heard the term "Greenwash" for the first time a few days before. Since I wrote my MBA thesis in part on greenwashing many years ago I was both surprised and glad to hear that she'd heard of it.

For those of you wondering what it means, here's the definition compliments of wikipedia-

"Greenwashing (a portmanteau of green and whitewash) is a term that is used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service."

The challenge comes of course in defining a standard as to what does or does not constitute a "green" product. While some standards have emerged, there is no still no hard and fast definition that I am aware of. And if you cant' define it, it's hard to definatively say who is and who isn't.

The Six Sins of Greenwashing

In December 2007, environmental marketing company TerraChoice gained national press coverage for releasing a study called "The Six Sins of Greenwashing," which found that 99% of 1,018 common consumer products randomly surveyed for the study were guilty of greenwashing. 99%? Wow!!!

According to the study, the six sins of greenwashing are:

Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: e.g. “Energy-efficient” electronics that contain hazardous materials. 998 products and 57% of all environmental claims committed this Sin.

Sin of No Proof: e.g. Shampoos claiming to be “certified organic,” but with no verifiable certification. 454 products and 26% of environmental claims committed this Sin.

Sin of Vagueness: e.g. Products claiming to be 100% natural when many naturally-occurring substances are hazardous, like arsenic and formaldehyde. Seen in 196 products or 11% of environmental claims.

Sin of Irrelevance: e.g. Products claiming to be CFC-free, even though CFCs were banned 20 years ago. This Sin was seen in 78 products and 4% of environmental claims.

Sin of Fibbing: e.g. Products falsely claiming to be certified by an internationally recognized environmental standard like EcoLogo, Energy Star or Green Seal. Found in 10 products or less than 1% of environmental claims.

Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: e.g. Organic cigarettes or “environmentally friendly” pesticides, This occurred in 17 products or 1% of environmental claims.

So what really constitues green and when is it real and when is it "greenwashing"?

I'll be back with more.

But meantime, what do you think?

It's Not Easy Being Green

A little "Green" inspiration for your day as sung by the master. Enjoy!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpiIWMWWVco

WHO'S GREENER? Clinton or Obama? McCain or Romney?

While this isn't about a green product, it does relate in that a president with a "pro-green" position will likely do more to push green intiatives and business. Compliments of our friends at live earth.

"As we get closer to primaries in more than 20 states on February 5th, and with the field of candidates narrowing quickly, it's important to consider environmental issues as you prepare to cast a primary vote. Have the candidates' positions on climate change, the Kyoto treaty, and their plans to increase energy efficiency or create green jobs changed your opinion of them? Is climate change a partisan issue? Check out http://www.liveearth.org/?p=343 . Still need more information on a candidate's position before you make your decision? Our friends at Grist have put together a great chart that compares each candidate's position on key issues - greenhouse gas emissions/ cap and trade, fuel economy, renewable energy, biofuels, and nuclear energy. Find out who is closest to your position: Grist Candidate Comparison Chart "