| Dear
EarthTalk: Which countries that signed onto the
Kyoto Protocol, which set goals for reducing global warming
emissions, are fulfilling or surpassing their commitments?
Which are falling short and why? -- Dan S., via e-mail
As
of the end of 2006, 169 countries had signed onto the Kyoto
Protocol, an agreement forged in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 calling
on the world’s industrialized nations to reduce emissions
of so-called “greenhouse gases” thought to be
contributing to global warming. The agreement called for a
5.2 percent reduction overall in the release of six pollutants—carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs)—by 2012 in relation
to 1990 levels.
Although
the agreement was hammered out 10 years ago, its emissions
reduction standards did not take effect until two years ago,
in February 2005. As such, signatory countries have only barely
begun to make changes, and no one has yet conducted a comprehensive
study of progress toward reaching targets. United Nations
research does show, however, that a majority of the 36 European
countries that signed onto the Kyoto Protocol are currently
not on track to meet their goals by 2012.
However,
the 27-member-nation European Union (EU), which as a block
is one of the largest global warming polluters, is likely
to meet its collective goal. This is due in large part to
Eastern European states having shut down or modernized heavy
polluting Soviet-era industries during the 1990s. Also helping
the EU effort is the United Kingdom, which is on track to
meet its goals, thanks mostly to a switch from coal-fired
power plants to cleaner burning natural gas. Germany and France
also hope to meet their Kyoto commitments, largely through
a program of subsidies for the development of non-polluting
energy sources. And Sweden expects to overachieve on its Kyoto
targets thanks to the imposition of a hefty carbon tax on
polluting industries and big investments in alternative energy
sources.
Topping
the list of Kyoto slackers is Canada, which last year became
the first signatory country to announce that it would not
meet its Kyoto target of a six percent emissions cut by 2012.
New oil production in the tar sands of Alberta has instead
forced Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions up significantly,
as the government has chosen to pursue economic growth as
a priority over meeting its Kyoto commitments. Japan is also
lagging behind. If no additional measures are taken, the United
Nations forecasts that Japan’s emissions will instead
grow six percent by 2012. But Japan’s environment ministry
says that implementation of some market-based incentives in
2008 should help Japan meet its goal.
Regrettably,
the United States and Australia don’t have to worry
about meeting any commitments, as neither country agreed to
sign the Kyoto agreement, even though together the two major
industrial powers account for 30 percent of the world's greenhouse
gas emissions. U.S. President George W. Bush does not support
mandatory caps on emissions, arguing that such a move would
cause irreparable harm to the U.S. economy. He also complains
that developing nations are not being held up to the same
standards as the rest of the world. Unfortunately, with the
U.S. on the sidelines, the good faith efforts of dozens of
other nations could end up being quite immaterial in the fight
to stave off global warming.
CONTACTS:
Kyoto
Protocol; United
Nations Climate Change Page.
PHOTO
COURTESY OF GETTY IMAGES
Charcoal
briquettes burn “dirty,” producing tiny soot particles
that pollute the air and that can aggravate heart and lung
problems. The grilling of meat can also form two kinds of
potentially carcinogenic compounds.
Dear EarthTalk:
I saw warnings on bags of charcoal that said carcinogens
are released when the briquettes are burned. Is it safe to
breathe in the smell of a charcoal grill? -- Joe Sliwa,
via e-mail
Barbecue grills
can be problematic for two reasons. First, both charcoal and
wood burn “dirty,” producing not only hydrocarbons
but also tiny soot particles that pollute the air and can
aggravate heart and lung problems. Secondly, the grilling
of meat can form two kinds of potentially carcinogenic compounds:
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heterocyclic amines
(HCAs).
According to the
American Cancer Society, PAHs form when fat from meat drips
onto the charcoal. They then rise with the smoke and can get
deposited on the food. They can also form directly on the
food as it is charred. The hotter the temperature and the
longer the meat cooks, the more HCAs are formed.
HCAs can also form
on broiled and pan-fried beef, pork, foul and fish, not just
on grilled meats. In fact, National Cancer Institute researchers
have identified 17 different HCAs that result from cooking
“muscle meats” and that may pose human cancer
risks. Studies have also shown increased risk of colorectal,
pancreatic and breast cancers associated with high intakes
of well done, fried or barbequed meats.
According to the
Texas Commission on Environmental Air Quality, Texans who
like to say that they “live and breathe barbecue”
may be doing just that to the detriment of their health. A
2003 study by scientists from Rice University found that microscopic
bits of polyunsaturated fatty acids released into the atmosphere
from cooking meat on backyard barbecues were helping to pollute
the air in Houston. The city at times registers air quality
levels that rank it one of the more polluted U.S. urban areas,
though emissions from barbecues are certainly dwarfed by those
generated by motor vehicles and industry.
Both briquettes
and lump charcoal create air pollution. Lump charcoal, made
from charred wood to add flavor, also contributes to deforestation
and adds to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Charcoal
briquettes do have the benefit of being made partly from sawdust
(a good use of waste wood), but popular brands may also contain
coal dust, starch, sodium nitrate, limestone and borax.
In Canada, charcoal
is now a restricted product under the Hazardous Products Act.
According to the Canadian Department of Justice, charcoal
briquettes in bags that are advertised, imported or sold in
Canada must display a label warning of the potential hazards
of the product. No such requirements presently exist in the
United States.
Consumers can avoid
exposure to these potentially harmful additives by sticking
with so-called natural charcoal brands. Noram de Mexico’s
Sierra Madre 100 percent oak hardwood charcoal contains no
coal, oil, limestone, starch, sawdust or petroleum products
and, to boot, is certified by the Rainforest Alliance’s
SmartWood program as sustainably harvested. The product is
available at select Sam’s Clubs across the U.S. Other
manufacturers of all natural charcoal include Greenlink and
Lazzari, both of which can be found at natural food outlets
across North America.
CONTACTS:
Rainforest
Alliance SmartWood Program; Greenlink
Charcoal; Lazzari. |
