Melanie Chan/Staff

One of the biggest challenges for sustainable international economic development is the need to control greenhouse gas emissions. Before we can make meaningful progress toward stabilizing the planet’s climate, we need to have an international roadmap for economic growth, job creation and poverty alleviation that still bends the curve on emissions.

Solutions for saving the planet need to be ones that contribute to economic growth! Certainly, for developed economies, we need to have a plan for sustainable growth that includes emerging energy-efficiency technologies, novel green generation technologies and new infrastructures. For the developing world, however, the path to development goes through an increase in per capita consumption of energy. A fundamental sticking point to agreeing to an international agreement on carbon emissions has been the concern in developing economies that such an agreement will stymie GDP growth.

I deeply believe, however, that it is possible to chart a course for economic advancement in both developed and developing economies while still curbing greenhouse emissions. On the demand side, overall energy consumption can be grouped into three categories: buildings, transportation and industry. For example, energy-efficiency technologies have the potential to reduce energy consumption in buildings in an economically viable fashion by as much as 50 percent in the next five years, with the consequent drops in greenhouse gas emissions. In countries in the midst of building booms, new advances in materials and green cement will lead to even higher savings.

On the supply side, new technologies such as smart grids, solar thermal, nuclear and hydrogen fuels hold rich possibilities. The specific trajectory to economic growth, however, will vary from economy to economy, and the overall trajectory will need to be set strategically through a rigorous and vibrant roadmapping process.

This carbon emission quandary, with stalled international negotiations and ineffective policies, is analogous to a problem faced by the semiconductor industry.

Although the semiconductor industry had been doubling every 12 to 18 months for close to three decades, by the late 1980s, the complexity of the semiconductor supply chain began to dampen innovation and cost billions. Semiconductor industry groups, academics and manufacturers met to discuss best practices and fundamental decisions underpinning their industry and created the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors in 1992. The plan continues to be updated annually and exists like a living document.

If the current boom in the Information Age and the ubiquity of devices such as smartphones, which rely on cheaper and faster semiconductors by the Silicon roadmap, is any indicator, the plan is working well.

To pursue the analogy between the Silicon roadmap and a carbon roadmap, with colleagues at UC Berkeley such as professors Spanos, Zysman, Ramesh and Doyle, we have launched the Center for Research in Energy Systems Transformation. CREST is under the rubric of the campuswide Berkeley Energy and Climate Initiative.

CREST is working to create roadmaps that are owned by implementers and are cooperatively developed for the purpose of guiding the world’s energy system toward high efficiency while producing fewer greenhouse gases.

The CREST carbon roadmap has two arms. The first is to develop long-term plans for specific carbon-reducing technologies. As a test case, Berkeley engineers are investigating how sensors and networks deployed in smart, green buildings can be designed for easy adoption on different scales. CREST makes use of Berkeley’s deep vein of multidisciplinary, smart building-technology research.

Second, CREST seeks to develop locally adapted tools and technologies that are sensitive to place, politics and culture. That’s why the second part of the CREST carbon roadmap is to identify obstacles to cross-national technology development and implementation. Colleagues such as professors Brewer, Miguel, Gadgil, Wolfram and others power the Blum Center for Developing Economies’ new partnership with USAID in a project called the Development Innovations Laboratory, which includes the development of sustainable energy technology roadmaps in economies such as India, Indonesia, Kenya, etc.

I was recently asked to serve on a new United Nations Scientific Advisory Board, which will provide guidance to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on international sustainable development issues, staffed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization with its mandate for science and technology.

I look forward to expanding on bringing the work that we are doing at centers such as CREST and Blum to the international conversation about sustainable development.

I am confident we can create a carbon-roadmap-style plan that outlines how equitable prosperity can be reached across the planet and shows that economic growth, job creation and greenhouse gas reduction are not mutually exclusive.

Shankar Sastry is dean of the College of Engineering and the faculty director at the Blum Center for Developing Economies.

The post A carbon map to development appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The panel, which is commissioned by the United Nations, is considered the leading scientific authority on issues of climate change. The report is the fifth issued by the IPCC, and it expressed a 95 percent level of certainty regarding anthropogenic climate change, representing an increase of 5 percent from the organization’s previous report, issued in 2007.

The report, which will be released in full in 2014, is composed of three working-group reports and a synthesis report. Working Group I, the only part of the report to be released thus far, addresses causes of climate change. Working Groups II and III assess the socioeconomic and environmental effects of climate change and options for mitigating climate change, respectively. The report includes contributions from more than 830 authors.

According to William Collins, a UC Berkeley professor of climate sciences and one of the lead authors of Working Group I, the report’s three takeaway messages are that the climate is changing, mankind is causing the change and, if our society does not change its behavior, these patterns of climate change will amplify.

Collins said stopping emission of greenhouse gases, from fossil fuels in particular, is a top priority in mitigating climate change and acknowledged that recent breakthroughs in creating sustainable energy could allow that goal to be accomplished.

“The community has been absorbing and coming to terms with this information more slowly than climate scientists would advise that they do so,” said Collins. “But I am a technical optimist in the sense that we know what we need to do and have invented much of the technology that we need to do it.”

UC Berkeley Class of 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy Daniel Kammen emphasized the importance of the report, calling it in an email statement “another nail in an already sealed coffin on climate change deniers.” He added that it is technically and economically possible for the world to meet an 80 percent decarbonization target.

While much of the report confirms information that was released in previous studies, John Harte of UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group agreed with its significance.

“We’ve seen a huge effort in the past month to put up a smoke screen of misinformation to try to divert the country from taking the next step,” he said. “What the IPCC report does is act as a counterweight to this effort. Without it, I think the forces at work trying to deny the science would completely win.”

Contact Chloee Weiner at cweiner@dailycal.org.

The post Climate change panel points to mankind as dominant cause of global warming appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Sean Conners/Staff

Tucked in an unassuming neighborhood in a district two miles southwest of the UC Berkeley campus, the “world’s safest” house stands boldly. And so does Eugene Tssui, a Cal alumnus and the house’s architect. In the past 20 years, the pair has challenged conventional wisdom and defied architecture’s status quo. Buying a small plot near a university built atop the Hayward Fault, in a state renowned for its earthquakes, Tssui seized the challenge to build a secure house for his elderly parents. His plan? Emulate the hardiness of a microscopic water bug.

The neighborhood fortress

From the street, the water bug likeness is uncanny. Amid a blanket of dense and colorful foliage, the rough-hewn exterior soars upward. Walls are striped with wrinkles and pockmarked with dinosaurian ridges. According to Tssui, every form has a function. The ridges each contain a black plastic tube that lets hot air flow around the house. The wrinkles magnify the effect. In the case of a fire, the striated surface would carry the heat up, out and away.

“It’s completely fireproof,” Tssui explained.

But that’s not all. The massive sailfish-like fin towering over the entrance doubles as a rain cowl and a wind breaker. Water and gusts of wind are directed away from the windows and doors (preventing indoor flooding). Though California hurricanes are rare, the house is prepared for the worst.

Tssui paid careful attention to sourcing the best building materials. The house’s structure is made of Rastra, a special concrete infused with compressed, recycled coffee cups. Rastra’s benefits are numerous, including fire resistance, flooding resistance, mildew resistance, termite resistance and noise reduction. In fact, Rastra’s sound insulation reduces sound levels by 50 dB or, in Tssui’s terms, “the difference between a jet roar and normal speech.” As for earthquakes, the house’s cavernous interior is supported by Structo-lite, a super strong plaster. Under stress, Structo-lite bends, flexes and adjusts. When the world is shaking, the house comes alive and survives.

Close-up of the exterior walls. Note the wrinkled texture.

“It goes beyond the definition of safety itself,” Tssui said. “A safe building is (by conventional standards) a heavy, rigid and monolithic building. But in nature, the strongest things are lightweight, flexible and unified. (This house) is designed as nature would design for safety. I’m absolutely sure it’s the safest thing that could be built for this disaster-prone area.”

Onlookers agree. From “most indestructible” to “disaster-proof,” the house’s accolades have held up to its miniature namesake: the Tardigrade, a beetle-like, extremophile creature. In 2007, the tiny Tardigrade became the first animal to survive outer space. In both form and function, Tssui’s meticulous translation of the little survivor’s body features into practical building designs has succeeded beyond the architect’s expectation. Recently, he replaced his house’s former, more mysterious designation, “Ojo del Sol,” with a more direct “Tardigrade House.” In spite of his best efforts, the public has been slow to catch on. ­

“Its seems to the general populace that it looks like a giant fish,” Tssui says with a shrug.

Twenty years ago, cynics thought the house would attract prostitution and drug trafficking. Over time, locals have come to call it “the Fish House near San Pablo Park.”  Now, this too may change. Originally built as his parent’s private residence, Tssui has partnered with Airbnb to rent the house to Bay Area travelers as short-term lodging. Now empty, Tardigrade House’s interior design is a striking contrast to its ashen exterior. Inside is a secret, otherworldly place with its own artistic bravado.

Swollen with sunshine

Entering the house is its own story. A flagstone path meanders from the sidewalk to the front door. The path descends in a slope, leading one into the jaws of the house. Tssui explains that he is trying to draw people into nature. At the same time, he adds, he has made the entire residence wheelchair accessible. Form, he reminds, always has a function.

The massive fin above the entrance casts a deep shadow inside the house, an altogether discrete and disorienting darkness. Through the still meandering entryway, the shadows vanish to reveal an atrium swollen with sunshine. Light filtered through a massive glass ceiling acts as the primary light source for the house. For Tssui, sustainability was key. Along with lighting, Tssui’s interior structure has made insulation and ventilation maintenance worry-free. Indoor temperatures never fluctuate.

“Year-round, you could wear shorts and a t-shirt with no heating,” he explains. “There are no fans either. And no air conditioning. (The house) is a great prototype for a zero-energy building , although it does require energy for ovens. But for heating and ventilation? Zero.”  To prove his point, he takes a sniff. “See? Mustiness does not exist.”

For an architect with a long career, reception for energy-efficient housing is a social development that is relatively new.

“LEED and energy conservation … none of that was talked about 20 years ago,” he admits. “This (house) is a success given today’s ecological goals and a pioneering effort in that. I am really pleased how everything turned out.”

The living room lies beneath the skylight. Sitting cushions flank a suspended wooden table. Hanging from the ceiling, like strings from an enormous puppet show, steel cables provide support to the atrium.

Each cable is anchored to a section of a massive spiral ramp. In the event of an earthquake, the cables absorb stress from the ramp and reinforce the entire house. Sound familiar? The mechanics were borrowed from the Bay Area’s most enduring icon: the Golden Gate Bridge.

The spiral ramp — also wheelchair accessible — provides access to the residence’s second-story living quarters. Along the path, the interior walls are riddled with orbs of stucco and inter-coiling, tendril-like carvings. Halfway up the ramp, a hemispherical window, like an enormous eyeball, bulges out. Like a silent guardian, Tardigrade House keeps watch over the Berkeley skyline.

The largest window in the Tardigrade House (seen from the spiral ramp)

In fact, every window in the house is circular. Shape, an often-overlooked component in window design, can be the deciding factor leading to irreparable property damage.  According to Tssui, ”One of the things commonly seen after an earthquake is cracks on the windows. This is because square windows cannot take strain and bunches stress at the corners. For (my) windows, forces are taken tangentially around the circles, so there is absolutely no cracking.”  Referring to the window’s submersible semblance, he, for good measure, adds, ” There is no reference to Jules Verne.”

On the second floor, bedrooms are decorated with maritime motifs. Shelves built into the walls have rounded, rippled edges. Carvings of spirals and parabolas crisscross. Squint. Some of the walls contain mica chips. Squint again. They glisten like starlight.

A new dimension of living

Architecture’s many episodes of history, from ancient Greek to art deco, bear little resemblance to the Tardigrade House. For Tssui, today’s challenges must be solved by 21st-century solutions.

“Architects and architecture are frozen in the past,” he said. “But past architecture has not even answered the problems of the past — like disaster situations. Our expectations of architecture (should be) to come up with new answers to very old problems.”

And they must also address quite a few new problems. While the house is prepared to confront short-term natural disasters, it doubles in being eco-friendly and energy-efficient. In a voice bordering on prophetic, Tssui adamantly describes the danger of global warming and environmental pollution.

“We are entering into what we call the ‘era of reckoning’,” he said. “All the mistakes we have created in the past we have to figure out and resolve. We have to take care of these mistakes. The last generation has turned Earth into a garbage dump, and we have to fix this. ”

Eugene Tssui stands proudly in front of the “Tardigrade House.”

At 58 years old — or “58 years young,” as Tssui jokes — the architect is remarkably future-conscious. By applying the  principles of modern life science to an ancient profession, Tssui pioneers a new family of architecture. He even has a name for it: the “Biologic Movement.”

“When I first designed this house, I asked, “How would nature design the house with these requirements?’ If you think how nature thinks, you are guaranteed not to destroy the planet.”

The Tardigrade House is located at 2747 Matthews Street in Berkeley, Calif.  This article is part of a series on Eugene Tssui.

Image sources: Sean Conners, staff

Contact Alex Mabanta at amabanta@dailycal.org.

The post Inside the world’s safest house appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Don’t get me wrong — I think polar bears are adorable. But seeing them trapped on a tiny piece of Arctic ice doesn’t really faze me. What am I supposed to do about it? Stop driving my car? Join Greenpeace?

These cuddly polar bears and the Arctic ice sheets have become the most prominent symbols of global warming, environmental degradation and all things climate change — but this overused association is outdated and ineffective. Am I expected to change my entire lifestyle and perspective of the world for the sake of a couple of bears thousands of miles away?

It seems like we’ve been trained to associate things like carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption solely with atmospheric and habitat destruction. We hear that carbon dioxide levels have reached almost 400 parts per million. Al Gore constantly bombards us with the phrase “anthropogenic climate change.” And we’re warned that species like the white lemuroid possum might go extinct due to human influences.

I think it’s a good time to clarify that I don’t just “believe” in climate change because it’s not a matter of faith — it’s a matter of fact. The scientific evidence is clear. I do, however, find fault in the way that climate change proponents have sensationalized global warming to try to galvanize the general public into action.

The entire concept of “going green” has, for the most part, largely disregarded the real impact that climate change has on human health. Take plastic water bottles, for example. On the global scale, water bottles — which only hold a measly 20 ounces — require 50 million barrels of oil annually to produce. This leads to an increase in fossil fuel dependence, which means more greenhouse gases. And when they’re inexplicably trashed and shipped off to the nearest dump, these seemingly insignificant little bottles take centuries to decompose, contaminating the soil and surrounding areas in the process.

Study after study warns us of this, but the International Bottled Water Association, an organization that advocates for bottled water, reports that only 32 percent of bottles were recycled in 2010. They flaunt this statistic as a success and at the same time claim that “90 percent of U.S. households” have the means to recycle their bottles. So why don’t the numbers match up? We’re nowhere near our full potential. Would we recycle more or simply buy fewer water bottles if the environmental institutions and the people who detest the nasty containers emphasized the reproductive damage that results from the potentially carcinogenic phthalates in the plastic?

The “what’s in it for me?” mentality that only our grandkids and great-grandkids will see the benefits of helping the environment has become the mantra of a large, apathetic portion of our generation that uses it as an excuse to live unsustainably. But the damage isn’t limited to the planet.

The World Health Organization estimates that 1.3 million deaths worldwide are due to urban outdoor air pollution. The mortality rate is 15 to 20 percent higher in cities with high degrees of fossil fuel combustion and particulate matter than in cleaner cities. Death is a real result of the damage inflicted on the environment.

Our monstrously high degree of water usage in the industrial and agricultural processes is reducing our total available freshwater and polluting what’s left of it. Bay Area tap water is widely known to be incredibly clean, yet the Ecology Center reports that our hot water taps contain “elevated levels of lead and copper,” not to mention the arsenic from industrial pollution.

The environmental efforts of Berkeley — the city, the students and the campus as a whole — haven’t gone unnoticed. The I Heart Tap Water campaign, a collaboration between students and the administration, has helped drive campus bottled water sales down by 48 percent since the 2005 school year. The Berkeley ReUSE program has also provided the campus with an opportunity to exchange reusable goods that would otherwise be sent to a landfill.

But everyone in Berkeley is a consumer. And we have purchasing power. Our cosmetics with their synthetic chemicals, our food with its host of pesticides and our electronics with their toxic flame retardants can all be avoided through greener purchasing. Companies and industries are listening, and if we let them know that we care about our health and our planet, they will make the necessary changes to their products for the sake of their own future profit.

To be truly environmentally healthy, there has to be an understanding about the interplay between our own actions and the world around us. Every iPhone that we buy, every Aquafina bottle that we throw away and every trip to the grocery store has a tangible impact on our health and well-being. So let’s use our desire to stay in good health to drive us toward sustainability. Then we might see greater strides toward making this planet more livable.

“Shahin Firouzbakht writes a Thursday column on health issues affecting student life. Contact Shahin Firouzbakht at sfirouzbakht@dailycal.org.”

The post Is the truth inconvenient? appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Charlotte Passot/Staff

Wouldn’t it be great if you could go to the beach in the winter? What if it meant you could never eat almonds again? Or potatoes? Or cherries? Sure, it’s nice that it’s sunny and warm in the winter now, but global climate change is negatively affecting agriculture around the world, which means it will most likely negatively affect you.

Most people are aware by now that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (think cars and industrial production) and methane (think oil, coal and landfills) are causing the globe to heat up and change in destructive ways. But how do these greenhouse gases affect the foods we eat?

For starters, warmer climates mean more pests and insects are invading crops throughout the year.  Before, most pests only harmed crops during the summer months.  But now, because of warmer temperatures, pests are able to survive in the winter. This has a number of negative consequences. One is that farmers are losing crops and money. This affects us as consumers because it means price increases in our food ­— in other words, producers have to make money somehow, so fewer crops means higher prices. It also means that farmers are using more pesticides on their crops because there are more pests they need to get rid of. Pesticides, which can stay on food even once they have reached the grocery store, may cause people to become sick.

Do you like cherries? Well, get ready to kiss their juicy deliciousness goodbye. You see, cherries need time to chill in order to grow. And to chill, they of course need cold weather. Since temperatures have grown warmer, there has been less chill time for cherries. This means that cherries have not been growing as well. If this continues, it could severely deplete the cherry
supply. And no cherries to grow means no cherries for us to eat. But these plump little spheres of succulent goodness are only the tip of the (melting) iceberg.

In California alone, the amount of almonds, walnuts, grapes and avocados are predicted to decrease significantly because of climate change. And not only that, scientists say that the crop yield for almost every single crop grown in California’s Central Valley will plummet nearly 30 percent in the near future. For almonds, that would be like taking 377 Olympic-sized swimming pools full of almonds off the market.

Even in cases in which higher levels of carbon dioxide could benefit a crop’s growth in theory, it could actually hurt its growth in reality. This is because crops, which need different nutrients to grow, can only grow as much as their most limited nutrients will let them. So even if there is more carbon dioxide, if there aren’t enough of the other nutrients, the crop’s growth may be hindered.

Now raise your hand if you can survive without water. Well, it turns out crops can’t either. With the increase in droughts, many crops are not getting the water they need to grow. And, you guessed it, this means more crop failure, less food and higher prices for us consumers.

I’d like to say this story has a simple solution. I’d like to tell you that if you buy fair trade bananas or consume meat fewer times per week or don’t eat blueberries in January — then voila! ­— we can stop hugging those trees and be on our merry way. But the truth is, while supporting local farmers, cutting down meat consumption and buying seasonal foods may be helpful, the problems causing climate change have roots that go much deeper than the crops themselves. And to dig up those roots, we’re going to need shovels a lot bigger than your average garden hoe. The kinds of shovels I’m talking about are getting involved in your local climate change organization, educating yourself on agricultural policies, voting for change and emailing your congressional representative to let them know you care about our food.

All of this is not to discourage you from making more sustainable food choices in your daily life because change can come at all levels. So if you decide to cut back on meat or turn the other way when you pass those vine-ripe tomatoes from Mexico in the grocery store, that’s a start.

I know it can be easy to feel plowed over by the magnitude of these issues, but take this as encouragement that we can do something — we just have to work a little harder than we thought. So whether you decide to take baby steps or pick up your over-sized shovel and start digging, at the very least, I hope I have planted some seeds.

Cody Dunitz is a senior at UC Berkeley.

Contact the opinion desk at opinion@dailycal.org.

The post Fight climate change on a local level appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Elizabeth Muller is co-founder of Berkeley Earth with her father, professor Richard Muller. Researchers analyzed climate data from as far back as 1753 to provide a more comprehensive study on global warming than has ever been completed before.

The post Elizabeth Muller of Berkeley Earth discusses climate change appeared first on The Daily Californian.

“Monoculture” lowers crop “biodiversity.” These are big words with negative connotations that keep coming up in the propaganda pieces of the food movement. The reason acres of land are planted with the same crop is so they can be treated exactly the same and harvested on the same perfect day, thus maximizing yield (energy efficiency = minimize inputs and maximize outputs). Monoculture increases risk of crop disease, but there is no risk to biodiversity. (Using the word “biodiversity” must bring with it risk of extinction, and this is not the correct word to use with crops. Crops have their highly valued, diverse germplasms in banks). Removing “the corporation” from agriculture removes the energy efficiency and removes the possibly of the eating of any animal food being different from eating oil.  The developing middle class of the world votes unequivocally to eat more chickens.

I personally love the idea of the woodlot. A modern pioneer owns 40 acres of mixed forest, and with the wood that grows sustainably from the sun’s energy each year, she fires a modern, EPA-certified, Energy Star wood-burning stove that heats the off-the-grid cabin, boils water and is a stove-top. To think that most of our 7 billion people on Earth could live like this is beyond ignorant. There are two reasons our food supply has kept pace with population growth (in everywhere but sub-Saharan Africa), and they’re improved genetic technology and industrialization. “Heritage crops” grown in urban gardens make hobby-food but can contribute almost nothing to feeding the world without using way more land and energy. Much of the “food movement” is about well-off people needing something. What?

I’ve studied the food movement for nine years now and discuss this topic every year with my Plant and Microbial Biology 13 students here at UC Berkeley. I think I’ve found the real need that drives the food movement, and it’s primarily not about food at all but distrust and fear (or hate?) of corporations. I do not like the corporatization of my life, my university or my food. Corporatization seems dehumanizing to me. However, I’m one of 7 billion living in a rapidly warming 21st century. We made way too many babies for our small planet. I hope we regular people learn how to better control our agricultural corporations, but we really should admit how much we need agribusiness for energy efficiency (and that we are getting just what we deserve!). We did not and do not need all of our people! In about 1924, our Earth had 2 billion people on it, and it will again someday. Until then, I suggest that those interested in food learn the facts and the realities. When we do, I trust we all will find the reasoning of the occupiers of the Gill Tract and the activists of the the food movement to be well-meaning but ultimately not properly addressing how we need to produce food. Perhaps fears of monster corporations and dreams of a more egalitarian politic have clouded their minds. Fears and dreams won’t get us out of our pickle.

Because of basic research, we are learning how plants work. In my opinion, crops will either be genetically upgraded or they will fail to produce in our hotter, drier, degraded future (with economic collapse possible). Basic research is — or was — going on at the university’s Gill Tract. Dr. Damon Lisch, in my lab, with the support of the National Science Foundation, hopes to plant his seed at the tract in about three weeks. I’d like to see Dr. Lisch’s and similar cutting-edge research valued by my university and all people.

Michael Freeling is a professor in the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology.

The post Gill Tract occupiers’ sustainability ideas are wrong-headed appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In his speech at the conference — a two-day event featuring college and city representatives from throughout the state held in Hotel Shattuck Plaza in Downtown Berkeley — Hertsgaard emphasized the risk from rising sea levels that could potentially submerge San Francisco and Oakland in the next 50 years.

He discussed the Bay Area’s advantages in having a society that does not dispute that climate change exists.

“We also have business and economic leaders who, far from resisting (climate change), are embracing the idea that we need to have clean energy as a response to climate change,” Hertsgaard said.

Water levels in the San Francisco Bay have risen nearly eight inches over the past century, and sea levels could rise 10 to 17 inches by 2050 and 31 to 69 inches by the end of the century, according to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

“We are going to lose the snowpack atop the Sierra Nevada Mountains,” Hertsgaard said. “That snowpack was responsible for about 25 percent of freshwater in the state.”

Hertsgaard said overconsumption also plays a great role in carbon emissions that result in ecological footprints.

“The average American child will leave an ecological footprint 108 times a child born in Sierra Leone,” Hertsgaard said.

He also mentioned many environmental leaders from the Bay Area, including Steven Chu, former UC Berkeley physics professor, who served as the 12th U.S. Secretary of Energy.

“We’ve got also a political tradition here where the environment is a bipartisan issue,” Hertsgaard said.

He commended former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for his environmental policies, such as the $11 billion proposal for water bonds to invest in future water flow and his fight against Proposition 23, what Hertsgaard described as a push from oil firms to suspend the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that set out to cut greenhouse gas emission levels.

“Climate change is not just an environmental issue … our business people now recognize that climate change is an economic imperative,” Hertsgaard said.

Social, political and economic forces are moving the Bay Area more toward clean energy and conservation of energy, he said.

“The challenges we face about the climate are so great that we can only master those challenges if we leverage the advantages that we have,” Hertsgaard said. “The plea as the father of a six-year-old: help make it the future that we can have rather than the future that we are afraid of.”

The post Journalist discusses need to address effects of global warming at Berkeley conference appeared first on The Daily Californian.

According to the study, evaporated water from trees adds to low-level clouds, which reflect solar radiation back to space instead of allowing heat to reach the earth’s surface.

George Ban-Weiss, an atmospheric science researcher at the lab, conducted the study along with researchers from the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University and the Indian Institute of Science.

“Past studies have looked at the broad climate effects of deforestation and afforestation,” Ban-Weiss said. “We wanted to look at which specific factors cause those climate changes. We knew that adding vegetation to urban areas had cooling effects on cities, but it wasn’t clear what happened around the globe.”

Despite the cooling effect observed in the study, the water vapor generated from evaporation contributes to greenhouse gases. But the cooling impact of the clouds far surpasses the greenhouse effect created, according to Ken Caldeira, staff scientist at the climate science laboratory at the Carnegie Institution and co-author of the study.

According to Ban-Weiss, the most important implication of the study is that even though planting trees has positive and negative effects on individual ecosystems, the net result is a cooler global climate.

“We used to worry that people adding trees might create warming somewhere else,” he said. “Now, people considering adding trees can rest easy knowing that they’re cooling their cities and the rest of the world as well.”

Long Cao, senior research associate at the Carnegie Institution, said that the study’s conclusion is not definitive because the study was conducted under ideal conditions, which may not be representative of the actual global climate.

“We are unable to precisely determine the global scale now because of all of the different factors that contribute to climate change,” Cao said. “Our findings are based on climate changing at a consistent rate.”

Caldeira said that the next step in their research will be to look at regional and seasonal data because, regardless of the global cooling effect, evaporation from trees will not help cool the climate in every ecosystem. In some instances, adding trees and increasing evaporation will just result in warmer temperatures.  Additional research will be required to determine how evaporation in these areas affects global climate, he said.

“If you look at the desert where there aren’t any low-level clouds, the water vapor would just make it warmer because of the greenhouse effect,” he said.  “Your results may vary.”

The post Study suggests evaporation from trees cools global climate appeared first on The Daily Californian.