Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall. 

Today we’re answering a question from listener Molly Magid:

Molly Magid: So I thought of this question because last year, there was a lot of buzz about the flights of SpaceX and Virgin Galactic, bringing people who are not astronauts into space and sort of sparking this discussion of what commercial space travel might look like. So I’m wondering, what are the environmental impacts of space travel and how does it compare to say, taking a plane flight

We had Charlie Adams and Ashley Junger from our Possibly Team look into this.

Megan Hall: Welcome Charlie and Ashley!

Charlie Adams: Hi, Megan!

Ashley Junger: Hey, Megan!

Megan Hall: The thought of traveling to space for ordinary (non-billionaire) people like me seems like something that’s pretty far into the future. Do I really need to worry about this? 

Charlie Adams: Yeah, not many of us can afford the $500,000 it costs to travel to space, but it does look like the industry is growing. Experts estimate that the commercial space travel industry could generate as much as a billion dollars in revenue by 2040.

Ashley Junger: So, it’s possible that more and more people will start going to space. 

Megan Hall: Got it. So what are the environmental impacts of space travel?

Charlie Adams: Rockets burn kerosene or natural gas, which means they emit carbon dioxide when they blast into space. 

Megan Hall: But how do rocket flights compare to plane rides when it comes to carbon emissions?

Ashley Junger: It depends on the aircraft, but a single SpaceX flight emits about as much carbon dioxide as two round trips flights between New York and South Africa.  

Megan Hall: Really? That’s actually not as bad as I thought it would be. 

Charlie Adams: Well, there’s more to this question.

Ashley Junger: It’s not just about what these space crafts are emitting, it’s about where those emissions happen.

Charlie Adams: When you fly into space, you’re going higher than most planes, into what’s known as the stratosphere. 

Ashley Junger: And the particles and gasses that come out of a rocket behave differently up there than in the lower parts of the atmosphere. 

Megan Hall: Differently good or differently bad? 

Charlie Adams: Well, it’s complicated. 

Ashley Junger: The truth is, we are only just learning about how those elements act when they’re more than six miles above the planet.

Charlie Adams: Some, like soot, or black carbon, are thousands of times more effective than CO2 at heating the upper atmosphere.

Ashely: And black carbon released in the stratosphere can linger for up to ten years, so it can have a long-lasting impact.  

Charlie Adams: But other substances come out of rocket boosters too, like aluminum which reacts with the atmosphere to form particles that reflect sunlight. This can actually cool the atmosphere.

Megan Hall: Wait, the stuff that comes out of rockets might cool the planet? 

Ashley Junger: Well, anything that blocks sunlight would likely cool things down, just like things that absorb sunlight will warm things up. But the exact effects are hard to predict.

Charlie Adams: So while we don’t know all the effects of space tourism on the atmosphere, it does seem pretty frivolous to burn all that fuel for a billionaire joy ride. On the other hand, those same people fly around in private 747s, which isn’t helping much either

Thanks, Charlie and Ashley!

That’s it for today. For more information, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go to the public’s radio dot org slash possibly. Or subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. 

You can also follow us on Facebook and Twitter- at “ask possibly” 

Possibly is a co-production of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative, and The Public’s Radio.

The post How does riding a rocket into space compare to taking a plane ride? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post How does riding a rocket into space compare to taking a plane ride? appeared first on Possibly.

In terms of disposing of the trees, fake trees in a landfill will take centuries to break down while real trees will break down much quicker or can be used as compost or firewood.

However, artificial trees last more than one season so using one every year will cut down on emissions needed to transport a tree.

In the end, whatever tree you choose, the emissions from making and transporting them is only about a gallon of gas, so choose whichever tree you prefer. But if it’s an artificial tree, keep it for as long as possible, and if it’s a real tree, get it from a tree farm or lot nearby.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

In 2019, the Rhode Island statehouse has a different type of Christmas tree in the rotunda…

10 News, Danielle Kennedy: Yes, it’s fake. 

It’s created something of a controversy…

10 News, Danielle Kennedy: The National Christmas Tree Association criticizing the governor saying she made a “poor decision for the environment and small businesses.

So in this encore episode from 2019, we decided to investigate, are artificial or real Christmas trees better for the environment?

We had Molly Magid and Tammuz Frankel from our Possibly team look into this. Welcome Molly and Tammuz!

Molly Magid: Hi Megan!

Tammuz Frankel: Hi!

Megan Hall: So what did you find out? Is an artificial or real tree better?

Molly Magid: Well, for this question, better could mean a lot of things, so we focused on comparing greenhouse gas emissions for artificial and real trees.   

Tammuz Frankel: To learn more about growing Christmas trees, went to Big John Leyden’s Tree Farm in West Greenwich.

Molly Magid: We talked to Tim Leyden: Leyden, the co-owner of the farm, who has also denounced the choice of a fake tree for the state house…

Tim Leyden: Our absolute competition is not other local farmers. It’s the fake artificial tree.

Megan Hall: what did you learn about the emissions associated with tree farming?

Molly Magid: Well, a Christmas tree farm is not impact free, because they often use fertilizers and pesticides.

Tammuz Frankel: But since Christmas trees take in about 2 kilograms of CO2 when they grow, they have a negative carbon footprint. 

Megan Hall: And how many emissions come from making an artificial tree? 

Molly Magid: Well, artificial trees are made of plastic, so the amount of emissions from making one depends on its size.

Tammuz Frankel: But, one study comparing the carbon footprint of real and artificial trees found that making a fake tree releases about 8 kg of CO2.

Megan Hall: Is that a lot?

Molly Magid: That’s about equal to burning a gallon of gas.

Megan Hall: What about at the end of the season? What’s the impact of throwing these trees away? 

Tammuz Frankel: Well, if you send an artificial tree to the landfill, the plastic takes centuries to break down, so it takes up space for a long Tim Leyden:e. 

Molly Magid: In comparison, a real tree will break down faster if you send it to a landfill. 

Tammuz Frankel: Or you could reuse it as compost or firewood. 

Megan Hall: So it sounds like real trees are better in all ways?

Tammuz Frankel: Not exactly. There’s one more thing to consider- how long you keep an artificial tree. Since you can use it year after year, you cut down on the emissions required to get a new tree every Christmas.

Molly Magid: And when you don’t need to get a new tree, you don’t create emissions driving to a tree farm or a lot.  

Tammuz Frankel: When we went to Big John Leyden’s farm, we drove fifty-five miles roundtrip, which released about 17 kg of CO2.

Molly Magid: That’s more than the emissions it takes to make a plastic tree!

Tammuz Frankel: And if we went back every year, those emissions would add up to even more.

Megan Hall: So, how long on average do you need to keep an artificial tree to make up for the emissions from its production?

Tammuz Frankel: One study states that, on average, keeping an artificial tree for five years would make up for the emissions associated with creating and transporting it. 

Megan Hall: Okay, so what’s the answer then?

Molly Magid: Well, whatever type of tree you choose, the emissions associated with making and transporting them is about equal to the emissions from burning just one gallon of gas, 

Tammuz Frankel: So either way, it’s not really a big deal. 

Molly Magid: You should get the type of tree you prefer, but if it’s an artificial tree, try to use it as long as you can. 

Tammuz Frankel: And if it’s a real tree, get it from a tree farm that’s close by and compost or mulch it instead of throwing it on the curb after Christmas. 

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks Molly and Tammuz!

That’s it for today. For more information or to ask a question about the way you recycle, use energy, or make any other choice that affects the planet, go to “the public’s radio dot org slash possibly.” Or subscribe to Possibly wherever you get your podcasts. 

Possibly is a co-production of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society and the Public’s Radio. 

 References

1. Couillard, S, Bage, G, and Trudel, J S. Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of artificial vs natural Christmas tree. Canada: N. p., 2009. 
2. PE Americas. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of an Artificial Christmas Tree and a Natural Christmas Tree for American Christmas Tree Association. 2010.

The post Is A Real Or Artificial Christmas Tree Better For The Environment? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Is A Real Or Artificial Christmas Tree Better For The Environment? appeared first on Possibly.

This episode first aired in October, 2019

First, some good news – the metal cans and litter that come with having a cat aren’t that big a deal when you compare them to the rest of the recycling and trash coming out of your house.

The bigger concern is what happens when your cat goes outdoors. Because there are more domestic cats than wild predators, cats kill an unnatural amount of birds and small mammals– a few million every day in the U.S.! Also, when cats go to the bathroom outside, they can pollute water sources or spread parasites to wild animals. 

The simplest solution is just to keep your cat inside, but if that’s not possible, make sure your cat is spayed or neutered, so they don’t increase the population of feral cats. And try putting a bell or a flashy collar on your cat to warn away any birds and rodents.

Megan: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet. And break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

Today we have a question from listener Sophie O’Connell. She wrote “I worry about the environmental “pawprint,” of my cats. What can I do?” 

We have Molly Magid and Alina Kulman in the studio today to answer this question. Welcome Molly and Alina!

Molly: Hi Megan!

Alina: Hello!

Megan: So, what did you find out?

Molly: Well, we visited Sophie at home, right around feeding time for her two cats. 

Sophie: *meowing + eating sounds* I just started to feel like we were going through a lot of cans of cat food a lot of cat litter. None of it seemed particularly healthy.

Molly: She told us that she thinks a lot about those metal cans and also the bags of litter that pile up every week.

Megan: Alright, well did you have suggestions for what she could do?

Alina: Yep! First we told her some good news: the metal cans and litter aren’t that big a deal, when you compare them to the rest of the recycling and trash coming out of her house.

Molly: However, one of Sophie’s cats, Little Bear, often goes outside, and outdoor cats are a big environmental concern.

Megan: Why are outdoor cats so bad?

Alina: Well for one thing, they can kill a lot of birds and small mammals– a few million every day in the U.S. alone!

Megan: So what? Animals kill other animals. It’s the circle of life.

Alina: Well, domestic cats kill an unnaturally high amount of prey, since there are more domestic cats than wild predators. 

Molly: Also, when outdoor cats go to the bathroom outside, they can pollute water sources or spread parasites to wild animals. 

Alina: And if they aren’t spayed or neutered, they can increase the population of feral cats- who cause the most problems when it comes to hunting and spreading disease.  

Megan: So is Sophie going to start keeping her cat indoors?

Molly: Well, she’s not sure if her cat really does much outside.  

Sophie: She thinks she’s tough and then she sits on the porch most of the time.

Megan: Ok but not every outdoor cat is as tame as Sophie’s, so what should you do if you have one that’s a big hunter?

Alina: Well the simplest solution is just to keep your cat inside, but if that’s not possible, make sure your cat is spayed or neutered.

Molly: And try putting a bell or a flashy collar on your cat to warn away any birds and rodents.  

Megan: Great! Thanks Molly and Alina!

That’s it for today. For more information or to ask a question about the way you recycle, use energy, or make any other choice that affects the planet, visit our question page.

Possibly is a co-production of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society and the Public’s Radio. 

The post Encore episode: How Can You Reduce The Environmental “Pawprint” Of Your Cat? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Encore episode: How Can You Reduce The Environmental “Pawprint” Of Your Cat? appeared first on Possibly.

This episode originally aired in October, 2019.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and use science to find everyday solutions.

I’m Megan Hall. This week’s question comes from listener Charlie Bakst. He was a columnist at the Providence Journal for forty years and he’s beginning to think about his own mortality. He says he wants to be buried when he dies.

Charlie Bakst: I have a problem in my imagination with the idea of being cremated. I don’t like the idea of them taking my body and consuming it. I don’t know what they do exactly, but I don’t want to know. 

But he’s curious, is burial or cremation more environmentally friendly?

We had Alina Kulman and Molly Magid from our Possibly team look into this question. Welcome Alina & Molly!

Alina Kulman: Hi Megan!

Molly Magid: Hello!

Megan Hall: So, what did you find out?

Alina: Well, we started by going down to Swan Point Cemetery to visit a place that’s set aside for what they call “green burials.”

Molly Magid: The president of the cemetery, Anthony Hollingshead, says these green burials start with a completely different type of coffin.

Anthony Hollingshead: It’s a willow casket. Totally biodegradable… no artificial material around the grave.

Alina Kulman: These coffins make it easier for your body to degrade and turn into soil.

Megan Hall: But what about the chemicals used to preserve a body, doesn’t that harm the soil?

Molly Magid: Well in a green burial, the body isn’t embalmed with chemicals like formaldehyde.

Alina Kulman: Which means the body isn’t preserved, so the funeral usually has to happen closer to the time of death. That means that if you’re interested in having a green burial, it’s worth planning it ahead of time.

Megan Hall: Is there anything else that’s different about a green burial?

Molly Magid: Yes, Anthony explained that you don’t have your own gravestone. Instead, there’s a memorial stone for the whole area. This reduces the greenhouse gas emissions that come from pouring concrete for each person.

Alina Kulman: But green burials still take up space. And cemeteries have to mow and irrigate plots, which uses energy and water.

Megan Hall: Ok, well what about the impact of cremation?

Alina Kulman: Well, cremation definitely saves more space because ashes don’t have to be buried.

Molly Magid: But there are other things to worry about, starting with the energy that’s used to cremate someone.

Alina Kulman: It’s hard to get precise numbers, but the Cremation Association of North America says that, on average, the whole process releases about 70 kg of CO2 per cremation. 

Megan Hall: Is that a lot? 

Molly Magid: About as much as the emissions associated with a one way flight from Providence to Washington DC.

Megan Hall: Is that better or worse than the emissions from keeping a burial plot watered and mowed?

Molly Magid: Well, it depends. A normal burial is definitely worse, but some green burials grow native plants around the gravesite to limit the need for mowing and watering. So, it all comes down to how many resources are used to maintain your plot. 

Alina Kulman: But let’s put this into perspective- your burial isn’t going to significantly impact the planet. The carbon emissions from people flying to your funeral could be more than your burial or cremation. In the end, how you live matters much more for your carbon footprint than how you die. 

Molly Magid: And for something as profound as your final resting place, you have to think about your personal preferences and the preferences of your loved ones. For instance, Charlie says he still wants to be buried but…

Charlie Bakst: She has other plans. She wants to be cremated. We know this about each other and we don’t really debate it. We just have different tastes.

Molly Magid: And now that Charlie knows about green burial, it’s something he’s considering for himself.

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks Alina and Molly.

For more information or to ask a question about the way you recycle, use energy, or make any other choice that affects the planet, please use our question page.

Possibly is a co-production of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society and the Public’s Radio.  

Resources

1. Environmental impact of Funerals. Life cycle assessments of activities after life. Keijzer, Elisabeth. September 2016 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 22(5) DOI: 10.1007/s11367-016-1183-9
2. Barbara Kemmis, Cremation Association of North America, personal communication, October 7, 2019.
3. Carubia, J. (2013). Sustainable end-of-life arrangements: An overview. NCUR.
4. “A different way to die: the story of a natural burial.” https://www.vox.com/2016/5/29/11775976/natural-green-burial
5. “Ever Green” http://eastsidemonthly.com/stories/east-side-monthly-august-2019,32564
6. “Death Be Not Manicured” https://slate.com/technology/2006/12/the-latest-in-green-burial.html
7. Sustainable End-of-Life Arrangements: An overview http://ncurproceedings.org/ojs/index.php/NCUR2013/article/view/360/359
8. “Eco-Afterlife: Green Burial Options” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eco-afterlife-green-buria/
9. “How Does Cremation Measure in Sustainability?” https://www.northwoodscasket.com/northwoodscasket/2014/10/18/how-does-cremation-measure-in-sustainability

Cremation emissions calculations

The “worst case scenario” is only one cremation per day, since with multiple cremations, the chamber retains heat and uses less energy for subsequent cremations. The amount of energy used in this scenario is 13-14 therms. These figures comes from the following calculation (numbers from Barbara Kemmis at the Cremation Association of North America):

1.     The burner uses ~1.32 mmBTU/hr

2.     The total process is ~2 hours but the burner is on for only ~1 hour for the initial heat up, since after it’s heated, the air is circulated to maintain heat and minimize smoke emissions. This means it uses 1.32 mmBTU.

3.   1,320,000 BTU* 1 therm/99976.12 BTU = 13.2 therms

4.   1.32 mmBTU * 117 pounds CO2/mmBTU (from: http://bit.ly/2JzxpPV) = 154.4 pounds CO2 = 70 kg CO2

The post Is Cremation Or Burial More Environmentally Friendly? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Is Cremation Or Burial More Environmentally Friendly? appeared first on Possibly.

Megan: Welcome to Possibly, where take on huge problems like the future of our planet, and break them down into small questions like how do you compost in the winter? I’m Megan Hall. 

Today, we have a question from listener Mikaila Arthur. Mikaila tries to be environmentally conscious, but like probably most of us, she still drives a car.

Mikaila Arthur: I got bad knees, I’m not going to drive my bike to work, so…

Megan: She can’t get rid of her car, so she’s thinking of replacing it with a new hybrid or electric one. 

But then she wondered, would that actually decrease her greenhouse gas emissions? Taking into account all the energy that goes into making a brand new car, is it more energy efficient to keep the gas car you already have, or get a new one that’s hybrid or electric?

Mikaila: And so when this thing got announced I was like, okay, maybe these people will have the answer!

Megan: Good news, Mikaila: we do! I’m here with Molly Magid and Lauren Black from our Possibly Team + they looked into this question. Hi Lauren and Molly.

Megan + Lauren: Hi Megan.

Megan: So Molly, what did you find out?

Molly: To answer Mikaila’s question, the first thing we did was try to figure out how much gas house gas emissions are released when you build a new hybrid or electric car.

Megan: Alright, so Lauren, what happens at the car factory?

Lauren: According to some recent studies, building a brand new midsize fully electric car generates about double the emissions it takes to build a similar gas car.  

Megan: Wow! Why does it take so much more energy to build these electric cars?

Lauren: The main difference is their batteries. Because they run fully on electricity, they have to have much bigger batteries than gas cars, and it takes a lot of energy and emissions to make those.

Megan: And what about hybrid cars?

Molly: Since hybrids run on both gas and electricity, their batteries don’t have to be quite as big, so the emissions to build them are somewhere in between gas cars and fully electric cars.

Megan: But so, are the higher emissions that come with building a hybrid or electric car worth it? Are they clean enough once you start driving them they makes up for the extra emissions you put into making them?

Lauren: Well, these cars do have much lower emissions, especially electric cars. 

Megan: what do you mean lower emissions? I thought they didn’t have any!

Molly: Well, the electricity that powers an electric car has to come from somewhere! In most cases, that’s a power plant that does create emissions. So, while the car itself doesn’t put out greenhouse gases, its power source does. 

Lauren: But that’s still a lot better than driving a gas car, which typically creates three times those emissions! That’s low enough that after you’ve driven an electric car for two or three years, you’ll have made up for the emissions you used to build it.

Megan: Ok so that’s for an electric car, but what about a hybrid? 

Molly: The emissions for hybrids are a little higher than for electric, because they do run partly on gas. But here’s the thing- if you get a plug-in hybrid that you charge at home, you’ll probably produce about the same amount of emissions as an electric car. 

Megan: Why?

Molly: In these plug in hybrids, the gas engine only kicks in once the battery runs out, which is anywhere from 25-90 miles depending on the model. That means that a lot of people could do most of their daily driving without using the gas engine at all.

Megan: Alright so what’s the final verdict for Mikaila? Are the emissions from driving hybrid and electric cars low enough that it makes sense to buy one?

Lauren: We think yes! If Mikaila buys a new car that runs mostly on electricity, it will only take two or three yearsto make up for the emissions that were used to build it. Considering that the average car on the road is 10 years old, Mikaila will get those emissions back and then some! 

Molly: And we’d also recommend getting a plug-in hybrid, because it can run fully on electricity for a good distance, but it can still go farther when you need to drive more.

Megan: Great! Thanks Lauren and Molly.

Outro Megan: That’s it for today. If you have a question about the way you recycle, use energy, or make any other choices that affect the planet, tell us about it at “the public’s radio dot org slash possibly” and we’ll find an answer!

The post Is It Worth It To Buy A Hybrid Car? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Is It Worth It To Buy A Hybrid Car? appeared first on Possibly.

This episode was originally published on December 2, 2019.

For the same amount of heat, wood produces more emissions than oil. Plus if everyone in Rhode Island uses wood stoves to heat their home, we would deplete our forests in just a few years. However, if the wood you burn is already dead or dying, then it would decompose and release those same emissions.

Our recommendation is to heat your house using an oil furnace and only use a wood stove if you burn salvaged wood.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet, and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

Today we have a question from listener Lisa Wright. She asks: “Our house has an oil furnace and a wood stove. Which one is best to heat our home in the winter?” 

We had Alina Kulman and Molly Magid from our Possibly team look into this. Welcome Alina and Molly!

Alina Kulman: Hi Megan!

Molly Magid: Hello!

Megan Hall: So should Lisa heat her house using an oil furnace or wood stove?

Alina Kulman: Well first we talked with Lisa to learn more about how she heats her house

Lisa Wright: We keep the furnace around 64 during the day and when the stove is going nicely it keeps the house cozy

Molly Magid: So during the day, Lisa sets the temperature for her furnace low and uses the wood stove to boost it up to 70. 

Megan Hall: Ok Lisa uses both her furnace and stove, but she wants to know the impact of each heating source on its own?

Alina Kulman: Exactly. And this question might apply to many Rhode Islanders. The state has seen a spike in people who rely on firewood to heat their homes. 

Megan Hall: Alright, so where did you start?

Molly Magid: First, we looked at her oil use from last year, which was about average for household heat in Rhode Island, and calculated that it releases about 10 tons of CO2 per year. 

Megan Hall: And what would the emissions be if Lisa just heated her home using the wood stove?

Alina Kulman: Well we estimated that, to heat her house for a year, Lisa would need to use the wood from about 50 trees. The number depends on what kind of wood, but 50 is a good ballpark.

Molly Magid: And burning all of that wood releases about 14 tons of CO2 per year.

Megan Hall: So burning wood creates more emissions than heating with oil?

Molly Magid: Yes, for the same amount of heat, wood creates more CO2 emissions.

Megan Hall: So, it’s always better to burn oil instead of wood?

Alina Kulman: Well, that depends on where Lisa gets her wood 

Molly Magid: She says that sometimes she buys firewood but also…

Lisa Wright: We had a couple of trees removed in our backyard, so we used that wood.

Megan Hall: Is that better?

Alina Kulman: Well, trees also release CO2 emissions when they die and decompose. In fact, those emissions are equal to what happens when you burn that wood in a stove. 

Megan Hall: So if Lisa only used salvaged wood for her stove, those CO2 emissions would be released whether she burned the wood or not? 

Alina Kulman: Right. 

Molly Magid: But cutting wood specifically to burn it is a different story.

Alina Kulman: Cutting trees to heat all our homes just isn’t feasible.   

Molly Magid: Remember, it would take 50 trees just to heat her house. If everyone in RI used wood to heat their homes, we’d clear all the trees in the state in just a few years.

Megan Hall: So, what’s the answer to Lisa’s question? 

Alina Kulman: Our recommendation is that Lisa should heat her home using her oil furnace, and should use the wood stove to supplement only if she burns salvaged wood.

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks Alina and Molly 

That’s it for today. For more information or to ask a question about the way you recycle, use energy, or make any other choice that affects the planet, check out our question page.

Possibly is a co-production of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society and the Public’s Radio. 

References

1. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=15431

The post Oil-Burning Furnace Or Wood-Burning Stove? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Oil-Burning Furnace Or Wood-Burning Stove? appeared first on Possibly.

This article was originally published on November 18, 2019

The short answer is you should use a space heater and keep the house at a lower temperature, since it’s more efficient than heating the entire area of the house. However, if you’re concerned about your emissions, you can replace an oil or gas furnace with a heat pump which runs on electricity. You can also sign up to get your electricity from sources that are 100% renewable.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet. And break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

Today we have a question from a listener Barbara. She says, “I only need one room heated during the day. Should I use a space heater or heat the whole house?”

Molly Magid and Alina Kulman from our Possibly team looked into this question.. Welcome Molly and Alina!

Molly Magid: Hi Megan

Alina Kulman: Hello!

Megan Hall: So, should Barbara heat one room with a space heater or warm up her entire house?

Molly Magid: Well we visited Barbara at home to learn more.

Alina Kulman: First, she showed us her thermostat

Barbara: This is where the thermostat is. It’s like all the way down to 55.

Molly Magid: After she sets the temperature at 55, she turns her space heater on.

Barbara: That’s my antiquated space heater. I have it plugged into a lamp timer so that it only goes on at certain times of the day

Alina Kulman: Barbara says she keeps the heater on for nine hours and then turns her thermostat up to 68 degrees after turning it off.

Megan Hall: And how many emissions does using the space heater create?

Molly Magid: Based on the type of space heater she uses and the amount of time it runs, we were able to calculate that it produces about 11 pounds of CO2 emissions.

Megan Hall: How does that compare to the emissions from heating the whole house at 68 degrees during the day?

Alina Kulman: Well, Barbara has an oil furnace. So, based on our rough calculations, if she heated the entire house, she’d produce about ten times the emissions of using the space heater.

Megan Hall: Wow! So, does that mean the space heater is more efficient than her oil furnace?

Molly Magid: Not really. That’s just because her house is about 10 times the size of the room she heats during the day.

Alina Kulman: Space heaters in general are less efficient than oil furnaces. If she heated her whole house with space heaters, that would actually produce more CO2 than heating the house with oil.

Megan Hall: So, are you saying an oil furnace is better than an electric heater?

Molly Magid: That’s a tricky question to answer. On the one hand, her electric space heater has to work a lot harder than the oil furnace to create the same amount of heat. So, it uses more energy.

Alina Kulman: Right now, this creates more emissions, because in Rhode Island her electricity comes from power plants that burn mostly natural gas.

Molly Magid: But if Barbara got her electricity from a renewable source like wind or solar power, the space heater would produce almost zero emissions.

Megan Hall: And that’s because sources of renewable electricity create almost no emissions?

Molly Magid: Exactly!

Megan Hall: So, what’s the answer to Barbara’s question? Should she use a space heater to heat one room during the day?

Alina Kulman: Yes. It’s definitely more efficient to heat one room instead of the whole house, even if you’re using an antique space heater.

Molly Magid: But, if Barbara is concerned about her emissions she could take a few more steps.

Alina Kulman: First, she could sign-up to get her electricity from sources that are 100% renewable. In Rhode Island, this option is available from a handful of companies that work directly with National Grid.

Molly Magid: Second, she could replace her oil furnace with something called an air source heat pump. Heat pumps run on electricity and are much more efficient than her old space heater or her oil furnace.

Alina Kulman: There are even rebates to help her make the switch.

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks Molly and Alina

That’s it for today. For more information or to ask a question about the way you recycle, use energy, or make any other choice that affects the planet, go to “the public’s radio dot org slash possibly”

Possibly is a co-production of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society and the Public’s Radio.

Resources

1. National Grid GreenUp Energy Providers

The post Space Heater For One Room Or Furnace For The House? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Space Heater For One Room Or Furnace For The House? appeared first on Possibly.

Straws, like most plastics, are made using fossil fuels and cannot be recycled. However, they are not the biggest problem when it comes to plastic waste that ends up in landfills or the ocean. If you use straws every day, they might be a significant part of your impact. A good way to reduce waste is to find which disposable, single-use items you use the most and try to cut back on them.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall. Today we’re talking about plastic straws.

Megan Hall: You might have noticed that a lot of cafes are replacing plastic straws with paper straws or offering metal or glass straws instead. They’re sort of having a moment right now. But not everybody is excited about this idea.

Isabelle Doyle: They don’t work. You can’t drink liquid through a paper straw.

Megan Hall: That’s Isabelle Doyle, a Brown student, and she was not happy when the university replaced plastic straws with paper straws. So here’s the question: why are so many people talking about banning straws right now and how much of a difference does skipping the straw actually make?

Megan Hall: I have Lauren Black and Molly Magid in the studio today. They’re part of the Possibly team and they looked into the answer.

Megan Hall: Welcome Lauren and Molly.

Molly Magid: Hi Megan.

Lauren Black: Thanks for having us.

Megan Hall: So what did you find out?

Lauren Black: So one problem with plastic straws is that, like most plastics they’re made from fossil fuels and they take a long time to break down. So they can stay in landfills or the ocean for hundreds of years. And this issue of straws ending up in the ocean is what’s really gotten the anti-straw movement going.

Molly Magid: But the thing is that straws are only a small percentage of the trash. Only about four percent of the plastic in the ocean, and ahead of those are plastic bottles and bottle caps, plastic bags and many other items.

Megan Hall: So if plastic straws don’t make up a big percentage of the trash in the ocean, then why is everyone making such a big deal about them?

Lauren Black: So to figure that out we talked to Dave McLoughlin, who’s on the task force to tackle plastics created by Gina Raimondo this past summer. And here’s what he said.

Dave McLoughlin: I would say two things about straws. The first one is the topic of recycling, right?

Lauren Black: So unlike other disposable plastic items, plastic straws can’t be recycled and because of that, if you put them in the recycling by accident, they can actually mess up the whole thing and make it so that the load is too contaminated and everything has to go to the landfill.

Megan Hall: So if you think you’re doing the right thing by recycling a straw, you’re actually making the problem worse?

Lauren Black: Yes.

Megan Hall: Dave said that there were two problems. What was the other one?

Molly Magid: Well, straws are one of the easiest kinds of plastics to get rid of. Some people with disabilities do need straws but for most people it’s totally optional. So if you think about when you’re getting an iced coffee you do need that plastic cup to hold the coffee. But, you don’t need to drink it with a straw.

Lauren Black: And if you just really love straws, or you’re like Isabelle and you hate the paper ones, you can get a reusable one and bring it with you.

Megan Hall: So it sounds like you’re saying that plastic straws aren’t like the biggest problem for trash in the ocean, but it’s not that hard to get rid of them, so why not?

Molly Magid: Yeah, and if you stop using straws that’s great. But as we said there are a lot of other kinds of plastic trash out there, so you should look at your grocery bags and forks and random packaging that you use and try to figure out what you can cut down on.

Lauren Black: Yeah. Everyone has something that they could use less of. Even Dave.

Dave McLoughlin: I will share with you that I use too many paper towels a week, it’s just something I do. Maybe I could say it’s a clean habit to have, but I got to break it.

Lauren Black: So basically you need to look at your own habits and see what you can use less of and if you use plastic straws every day that actually might be one of your biggest things to cut down on. But if you only use like one straw a month but you never bring your own bags to the grocery store, probably focus on getting a reusable bag first.

Megan Hall: Great. Well thank you, Molly and Lauren for looking into this question.

Megan Hall That’s it for today. To ask a question about the way you recycle, use energy or make any other choice that affects the planet, ask on our question page.

The post Possibly: What difference do straws make? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Possibly: What difference do straws make? appeared first on Possibly.

Beef is responsible for way more emissions than charcoal. Let’s say you grilled 10 hamburgers over the course of an hour. Raising and transporting the meat in those burgers would be 7x the emissions of grilling them. If you’re grilling, use propane if you can, but more importantly, substitute in some chicken or vegetables for hamburgers and hot dogs.

If you have a question for Possibly, please use our short question form.

[originally broadcast in August, 2019]

Megan: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet… And use science to find everyday solutions.

I’m Megan Hall.

School’s out and the weather is warmer. For a lot of us, that means it’s grilling season. But if you’re cooking outside this summer, what’s better for your carbon footprint- using gas or charcoal?

We had Alina Kulman and Molly Magid from our Possibly team look into this. Welcome Alina and Molly!

Alina: Hi Megan

Molly: Hello.

Megan: So, what did you find out?

Alina: Well, one study found that grilling with charcoal for an hour produces three times the emissions of grilling with gas.

Megan: Why is charcoal so much worse than gas?

Molly: Well, charcoal is made from trees, and deforestation is a big contributor to climate change. And to turn wood into charcoal, you have to burn it at a high temperature, which releases a lot of CO2.

Alina: And once you start grilling, charcoal produces even more emissions since it keep burning. even after the food is off the grill.

Megan: But what about people who just love the taste of charcoal grilling?

Alina: He found someone like that. Kurt Teichert is an environmental studies professor at Brown University. He prefers grilling on charcoal, but he almost never goes out to buy it.

Kurt: most of the wood that I use is salvaged so its limbs that come down, or you know if I’ve got to prune a tree back I tend to hang onto that.

Molly: Kurt makes his own charcoal by cooking with wood that otherwise would have been thrown away. He even uses popsicle sticks as kindling.

Megan: That sounds like a lot of work. Is it worth the effort?

Molly: Actually, yes. In the same study that looked at grilling methods, researchers found that using fallen or salvaged wood for charcoal produces less emissions than grilling with gas.

Megan: Ok, but can we really expect everyone to grill with leftover popsicle sticks?

Alina: Most people probably don’t have the time or energy to collect their own wood. But ultimately…

Kurt: what you’re putting on that grill has much more the potential footprint than what you’re using to grill it.

Molly: Kurt’s right. Beef is responsible for way more emissions than charcoal. Let’s say you grilled 10 hamburgers over the course of an hour. Raising and transporting the meat in those burgers would be 7x the emissions of grilling them.

Megan: So, what’s the take-away here?

Alina: If you’re grilling, use propane if you can, but more importantly, substitute in some chicken or vegetables for hamburgers and hot dogs.

Megan: Thanks for looking into this, Molly and Alina!

Megan: That’s it for today. For more information or to ask a question about the way you recycle, use energy, or make any other choice that affects the planet, use our short question form.

The post Greener grilling: Gas or charcoal? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Greener grilling: Gas or charcoal? appeared first on Possibly.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and use science to find everyday solutions.

I’m Megan Hall. In the US, one out of five households don’t use a dishwasher because they think it uses more water and energy than washing by hand. So, we wanted to test this out: is hand washing really more efficient than using a dishwasher? 

Alina Kulman and Molly Magid from our Possibly team put this question to the test. Welcome Alina and Molly.

Alina Kulman: Hi Megan!

Molly Magid: Hello!

Megan Hall: So, what did you find out?

Alina Kulman: Well, we went to Molly’s house since she has a dishwasher. 

Molly Magid: I told my roommates to stop washing their dishes for a few days, so we had a stack of dirty dishes ready.

Alina Kulman: We put a five-gallon bucket beneath the faucet and measured the temperature of the warm water. Molly got ready to wash the dishes.

Molly Magid: We’ve got a new sponge for this! (washing noises)

Alina Kulman: …you now have a bucket full of soapy, dirty water.

Molly Magid: After the first bucket filled up, I dumped the water and started washing again. 

Alina Kulman: I mean it’s just crazy to see fully how much water you’re actually using because I use probably a similar amount.

Molly Magid: Yeah usually the water just goes down the drain and you don’t have to think about the total amount you’re using.

Megan Hall: Ok so how much water did you end up using to wash the dishes?

Alina Kulman: Molly used three full buckets which totaled fifteen gallons of water

Molly Magid: Based on the temperature of the water, we were able to calculate that heating it with gas released about 900g of CO2.

Megan Hall: How does that compare to the water and energy used by the dishwasher?

Molly Magid: Well, I have a newer dishwasher made by Bosch. And according to the company’s calculations, a typical wash cycle uses about 1 gallon of water and releases about 260g of CO2.

Alina Kulman: That means that when we hand washed the dishes, we used 15 times more water and about 4 times more energy than the dishwasher!

Megan Hall: Wow! So everyone should just use their dishwasher?

Molly Magid: According to our research, older dishwashers still have better water and energy use than hand washing. And you can save even more if you don’t pre-rinse your dishes and just scrape off any food scraps.

Alina Kulman: But if you don’t have a dishwasher or you’re washing a set of fancy china by hand, you can fill a bin in the sink with hot soapy water.

Molly Magid: That’ll use less water and energy because the faucet isn’t constantly running, and you only have to change the water when it gets dirty. 

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks Alina and Molly. 

That’s it for today. For more information or to ask a question about the way you recycle, use energy, or make any other choice that affects the planet, visit our question page.

Possibly is a co-production of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society and the Public’s Radio. 

Check our work!

These are the calculations we did for this episode

Hand Washing: 

Water used = 15 gallons

Temperature of water = 100° Fahrenheit

Temp Change = 100-65 = 35° Fahrenheit

Q(heat) = 35*56781.18*4.184 = 8,315,036 J= 8,315 KJ of heat = 2.309 KWh

For RI electricity: 870.8 lbs/MWh = 0.394988236 kg/KWh (from: http://bit.ly/2kGu5t0)

Amount of CO2 released: 0.394988236 * 2.309 = 0.912317 kg CO2 = 912.3 g CO2

Bosch Dishwasher:

Uses 1 gal/wash and 0.67 KWH/wash, (from: http://bit.ly/2m1yB5j)

Water used = 1 gallon

For RI electricity: 870.8 lbs/MWh = 0.394988236 kg/KWh (from: http://bit.ly/2kGu5t0)

Amount of CO2 released: 0.67 KWH * 0.394988236 kg/KWh = 264.6 g CO2 

The post What’s The Most Efficient Way To Wash Your Dishes? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post What’s The Most Efficient Way To Wash Your Dishes? appeared first on Possibly.