Waste To Energy Systems


Five Green Projects in New Orleans

New Orleans is in the spotlight these days with the 10 year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina this past weekend. As a resident of New Orleans during this life changing time, it is important for this blogger to shed a positive light on the anniversary. With a lot of controversy on how well New Orleans has recovered, it is important to recognize the victories New Orleans has reached and how it has expanded its horizons past its previous existence. One aspect is the insurgence of green projects that have developed since the storm. We are listing five that were highlighted from the Huffington Post article “5 Post-Katrina Innovations New Orleans Can Brag About”

1. OysterBreak
The world is your oyster. At least it is for Tyler Ortego, Matt Campbell, and two professors at Louisiana State University, who invented the OysterBreak system in 2005 and brought coastal protection to life, literally. The system, which is essentially a chain of huge linked concrete cylinders, is made of an oyster-growing substrate that, once installed, is colonized by oyster larvae and eventually grows into a living reef. Because these solid reefs grow faster than sea levels rise, they reduce shoreline erosion. ORA Estuaries, the company that Ortego founded in 2010 to run the building and distribution of the oyster reefs, recently won The Big Idea pitch competition at the 2015 New Orleans Entrepreneur Week. As of yet, the oysters can’t be eaten, but Ortego is working on engineering the reefs to double as a sustainable food source.

2. Public Lab
New Orleans residents are bringing DIY to environmental protection. Powered by civic engagement, Public Lab is a nonprofit network of locals who are working to make sophisticated environmental monitoring tools accessible to the general public. They cover everything from water quality evaluation to aerial mapping, coming up with innovative ways to make complex monitoring devices out of inexpensive materials. Travis Haas, an environmental science teacher at the New Orleans Center for Creative Arts, and his eleventh grade students recently collaborated with Public Lab to map and assess the progress of wetland restoration. Acting as citizen scientists, the high schoolers launched a helium balloon attached to a camera and used Public Lab’s MapKnitter software to piece together the photographs it collected.

3. The Green Project
New Orleans residents say that Hurricane Katrina created 20 years of waste in a single day. True or not, the disaster left the city sitting on over 55 million tons of debris. Enter The Green Project. Founded in 1994 as a paint-recycling business, the New Orleans-based nonprofit stepped up after Katrina, taking materials from destroyed homes and reinvesting them into community rebuilding projects. Ten years later, The Green Project is thriving. The project promotes creative repurposing and prides itself on being accessible to all populations–materials are sold to community members at one-fifth of new retail costs. It also has the only paint-recycling program in the Gulf region and leads regular community recycling education workshops. We agree, it’s pretty much the whole package.

4. Water Wise
It wouldn’t be New Orleans without stormwater management. In 2013, Global Green USA launched its Water Wise NOLA program in New Orleans to advocate for simple solutions to water-related issues, such as flooding and substandard water quality. The organization is working to help residents lower their water bills by reducing consumption and promoting rainwater management. And they host regular rain-barrel builds–does it get better than that?

5. Eco-Friendly Transportation
Don’t worry; the city government is making an effort to green-ify New Orleans, too. After Hurricane Katrina devastated the city’s public transportation system in 2005, the Regional Transit Authority was tasked with a massive reconstruction project. Although the bus service is still operating at 35% of pre-Katrina levels, the RTA has made progress. Today, the transit network’s entire fleet is run on biodiesel and sixteen of their buses are biodiesel/electric hybrids. The city has also made pedestrian-friendly improvements to its streetlights. Since 2014, over 4,000 of them have been replaced with energy-efficient LED lights as part of the city’s ongoing Energy Smart Streetlight Conversion Program. We’d call that a step toward a brighter future.


Be Green: Eat the Ugly Produce

At Waste to Energy Systems, we are constantly looking for ways to be green and sustainable no matter how big or small the change. Sometimes it is the simplest change that can make a big impact! A recent one popular way to be green is as simple as buying the “ugly” produce on the super market aisle. A recent article discusses how picking up that strangely shaped potato or knobby tomato can make a huge difference in cutting down on food waste, a huge issue in the world.

From the article “Eat Hideously Ugly Produce If You Care About The Planet” from Huffington Post:

One of the simplest things you can do to help the planet thrive is to demand uglier produce. Buy the apple that has a funky knob coming out of its side. It’ll taste just the same as its cosmetically pleasing counterpart. Then tell your local grocer you want more uglies.


“It’s the low hanging fruit of sustainability,” as Jordan Figueiredo, the co-chair of the Zero Food Waste Forum, punnily puts it. Figueiredo and his partner Stefanie Sacks, a culinary nutritionist, are currently campaigning for a decrease in ugly food waste on Change.org. Their petition, which has more than 44,000 supporters as of August 6, is pushing big food retailers Whole Foods and Walmart to sell “less than perfect”-looking produce in their stores.

It sounds almost trite, but consider this: In the U.S., 26 percent of all produce is wasted before it even reaches the grocery store. (Even more is wasted once it lands in our kitchens.) A lot of that 26 percent is tossed because it doesn’t meet our standard of beautiful. While there’s no official government estimate on uglies waste, one farmer told NPR that about 30-35 percent of his crops is tossed “because of weird, cosmetic things they have.”

Discarding uglies isn’t good for our planet. When dumped into landfills, they decompose and produce methane, a gas that is 21 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Methane absorbs the heat of the sun, further warming the atmosphere. That’s not to mention the water used in the farming process just to produce food that’s thrown away. According to the UN, the water required to grow food that’s eventually wasted (not just uglies, but all food that winds up uneaten) equals three times the yearly flow of Russia’s Volga River.

Food waste is a colossal issue: Americans waste about 40 percent of their food, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. That’s enough food to fill 730 football stadiums. Yet in 2013, 49.1 million American lived in “food insecure” households, meaning they didn’t have dependable access to a commensurable amount of food. Instead of being thrown away, uglies can successfully be sold at a discount, making food more affordable, and farmers would be able to profit from more of their harvest.

The message in all of this seems to be the same one we’ve been taught since our pre-school days: Don’t judge a book by its cover. Eating ugly is a simple, proactive way to begin to undo the trauma we’ve forced upon our planet. There’s much more you can do to conserve and help the earth heal, but you can start by signing the petition and eating ugly.

#LoveUglyFood #EatGreen #Sustainable

Famous Landmarks Get a Green Makeover

Landmarks have always played a key role in a city’s economics because they draw tourists, which in most cities like Paris, Rome, and London plays a huge part in their yearly income. However, the unexpected cost of keeping these landmarks light up, running and awe-inspiring is the environmental impact. The Waste to Energy Systems team wanted to highlight those landmarks that are making the effort to stop making a negative impact and become an attraction for their green initiatives as well.

From the Huffington Post article, “The Eiffel Tower Just Became A Little More Green. Here Are 8 Other Landmarks That Did It First”.

The White House

white house solar
President Jimmy Carter famously had solar panels added to the White House roof in 1979. The panels, which were intended to heat water, were removed after Ronald Reagan took office. With little fanfare, the George W. Bush administration installed the White House’s first active solar electric system in 2002. President Barack Obama installed another set of panels in 2014.

The Eiffel Tower


Two wind turbines have been successfully installed on the Eiffel Tower to offset some of the structure’s energy use, are expected to produce 10,000 kWh annually. This will offset the power used by commercial activities on the tower’s first floor. The project is part of a larger efficiency upgrade that also includes LED lighting and rooftop solar panels on a visitor pavilion.

Vatican City

vatican solar
Solar Panels were installed on the roof of the 6,300-seat Paul VI Audience Hall in the Vatican in 2008. During his papacy, Benedict XVI made calls for greater environmental protection, and his successor, Pope Francis, has acknowledged manmade climate change and lamented a “culture of waste.”

London’s Tower Bridge

tower bridge led
In 2012, London upgraded the lights on its iconic Tower Bridge to more energy-efficient LEDs. “The spectacular view of Tower Bridge from my office in City Hall is one of my favorites in London,” London Mayor Boris Johnson said in a 2011 statement announcing the project. “It’s fantastic to now be able to crack on with this work to make it even better, brighter and greener and at no cost to the taxpayer.”

The Empire State Building

empire state building
New York City’s Empire State Building underwent a significant renovation in 2009 that included retrofitting the skyscraper to be more energy efficient. It received LEED Gold certification in 2011, making it the tallest LEED-certified building in the United States. The building’s retrofit reduced energy consumption by an estimated 38 percent, and put it in the top 25 percent of the most energy-efficient U.S. office buildings.

Berlin’s Reichstag Building
Built in the late nineteenth century, the home of Germany’s parliament was damaged in a 1933 fire and by allied bombing during World War II. It fell into disuse after the war, but a rebuilding was completed in 1999 and it once again hosts the legislature of a unified Germany.

Along with a glass dome that lets in natural light, the building has a biofuel-powered combined heat and power system that produces about 80 percent of the building’s electricity and 90 percent of its heat. The building also has photovoltaic solar panels on the roof and low-flow water fixtures.

George Washington Bridge

george washington bridge lights
In 2009, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey finished upgrading the George Washington Bridge’s light “necklace” to energy efficient LEDs. The Port Authority estimated that the upgrade would cut 260,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions annually.

Sydney Opera House

sydney opera house
The Sydney Opera House has implemented several steps to improve the facility’s sustainability, including more efficient air conditioners and lighting, along with a cooling system that uses seawater and saves millions of gallons of drinking water annually.


Could Gasification Save the Environment?

As the population grows, so will our need for waste management. The current situation in the US alone may be surprising to most people. Americans generate 250 million tons of garbage a year, and some reports show over 400 million tons and only about 1/10th of all solid garbage in the U.S. gets recycled. These numbers combined with agricultural waste and other industry waste leaves the U.S. with a staggering number. This data lead many companies, including Waste to Energy Systems, to develop alternative energy systems to begin chipping away at the world’s environmental issues. A recent online article discusses how gasification can play a role in turning around these issues.

From “Gasification of MSW may save Mother Earth” published on www.wastedive.com
Gasification and Landfills

(Above Image): Gasification can greatly reduce landfill capacities.

To keep up with the amount of trash, hundreds of municipalities request permits to expand their landfill capacities. Geologist Walter Leise recently described expansion initiatives as building a mountain of trash on top of another mountain of trash, offering a vivid description of the concept. As landfills get bigger and expansions become more controversial, do officials have a better option for the disposal of municipal solid waste?

WSI Management seems to think so. The Plant City, FL-based waste management company focuses on two objectives: the need for environmentally safe and economically sound management of municipal solid waste, and the quest for clean, renewable energy. WSI Management’s Vice President Matt Linda explained to Waste Dive that the company does not look to dispose of solid waste through plasma technology, or anaerobic digestion, or incineration. Instead, the company has mapped an “intellectual blueprint” to turn MSW into fuel cubes and bioplanks through gasification.

According to a report published by the Gasification Technologies Council (GTC), gasification combines carbon-based materials in MSW (known as feedstocks) with oxygen to break them down into a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, while removing pollutants. This process leaves clean, “synthesis gas” that can be converted into usable energy or products.

Despite common belief, the process of gasification is not the same as incineration. GTC defines incineration as using MSW as a fuel, “burning it with high volumes of air to form carbon dioxide and heat.” Gasification uses the MSW as a feedstock to create syngas, which is then turned into “higher valuable commercial products” instead of just heat and electricity.

“Instead of paying to dispose of and manage waste for years in a landfill, using it as a feedstock for gasification reduces disposal costs and landfill space, and converts those wastes to electricity and fuels,” the report states. Linda notes that the use of such gasification systems can solve disputes over landfill expansions and how to properly dispose of waste.

Keystone Landfill in Pennsylvania is permitted for 7,200 tons [of MSW] a day. 7,200 tons a day that’s going into Mother Earth,” Linda says. “And now because of the expansion permits, the residents don’t want the permit and they’re up in arms. There’s another landfill expansion in Ontario, NY. You’ve got Saugus, MASuacon Township in PA … Prehistoric landfills don’t exist anymore and incineration just spews material into the atmosphere, which is not good for anyone. There are technologies out there that could fix all of these boo-boos, and WSI [technology] just happens to be one of many.”

Gasification will continue to be a growing source of responsible waste disposal for both waste management companies and municipalities to consider. “It’s good for the industry, good for taxpayers, and supports this Government’s long-term plan for a stronger economy,” said Maude.




Part 2: Renewable Energy Enters the Limelight in Upcoming Presidential Campaign

A continuation of the Guardian’s article “Is Hillary Clinton’s ambitious solar energy goal for the US workable?”. We pick up again in the article with the second goal in the plan.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Clinton noted that further federal investment would be needed to incentivise the sector’s push to 33%. In a fact sheet, the campaign flagged the resuscitation of tax credits and some innovation and regulatory incentives.

“That [the return of tax credits] is hardly a sure thing, given that at least one chamber of Congress will inevitably be Republican controlled during at least the first two years of any new president’s term,” said Zindler.

People in the US may care less about climate change than they do about cost
Jürgen Weiss, Brattle Group consultancy Jürgen Weiss, head of climate change at the Brattle Group consultancy, said incentives were important as the industry remained relatively tiny, with low public awareness. A large percentage of costs for installers of residential solar are wrapped up in selling the technology to a sceptical public who have relatively low electricity costs and little concern for climate change. “The big part is convincing people to sign up in the first place. People in the US may care less about climate change than they do about cost,” he said.

Although the technology, regulatory and labour costs are roughly similar, the price of installing residential solar in Germany (where high electricity costs, strong public acceptance and large government incentives have driven a huge push to solar) is around $1.50 (£1) per watt cheaper than in the US. Even if half of Clinton’s target of 140GW of solar by 2021 were to come from residential (as opposed to utility) solar panels, that equates to a cost difference of more than $100bn, mostly spent on advertising and sales.

John Reilly, an energy economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the targets would be a challenge “in terms of providing incentives to build that much”.

Weiss said: “I do think those costs will come down as the market matures and people get more informed.” The danger, he said, was providing too much tax-payer funded incentive early on. In Germany and the UK, the solar industry has come under political pressure for being too successful when subsidies were high and now suffers from accusations of being a ‘subsidy junky’.

It’s important to clear up some ambiguity in the Clinton rhetoric. From her renewables campaign video, “a 10-year goal of generating enough renewable energy to power every single home in America” does not mean every home is going to have its own clean energy supply. The residential sector uses roughly a third of the total electricity generated. So a 33% renewable goal means the country will be generating this much clean energy, but not all of it will end up in homes.

But factories and office buildings don’t vote and the promise, as my colleague Suzanne Goldenberg points out, allows Clinton to sound like she’s liberating bill payers from utilities. It is also clear that Clinton’s focus on solar (as opposed to wind) is aimed at the voting bill payer. Solar even garners support among some Republicans because of the freedom it offers from regulation and bills.

The Department of Energy has found that wind energy can affordably reach 20% of electricity generation by 2030. And, under Obama’s Clean Power Plan, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts it will be the biggest contributor of new renewable capacity throughout the 2020s.

As part of her announcement, Clinton pledged to uphold the Obama administration’s heavily-opposed restrictions on the carbon emissions of power stations, which are expected to accelerate the already rapid shut-down of coal plants across the country. This capacity will mostly be taken up by cheap gas, but there will be space for renewables if they can compete.

Renewable Energy Enters the Limelight in Upcoming Presidential Campaign

The Presidential Campaigns are upon us and one of the first big issues is the environment and renewable energy. The Waste to Energy Systems team is proud to be a part of the environmental movement and excited that it is one of the first topics being discussed by many candidates. The one receiving the most press for her renewable energy plan is Hillary Clinton with her aim to have 33% of the U.S. energy coming from renewable sources by 2027… that’s only 12 years away with a 20% increase. Below, the main two goals of Hillary Clinton’s plans are discussed.

From the Guardian article “Is Hillary Clinton’s ambitious solar energy goal for the US workable?”

On Sunday, Hillary Clinton took a first swing at the many-headed carbon hydra. By the end of her first term, she said, the US would have seven times more solar energy capacity than it does today. And by 2027, renewable energy would supply a third of the nation’s electricity.

Clinton’s announcement, which the campaign said would be the first of many on climate change from the presidential hopeful, extends the carbon-saving ambition in a significant sector of the economy. Burning fossil fuels for electricity accounts for 31% of US greenhouse gas emissions. One estimate found Clinton’s 33% renewable target could slice another 4% off the US’s existing pledge to cut emissions by 26-28% by 2025.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s Americas chief, Ethan Zindler, said the ambition was high, but within reach. “It appears to be on the upper end but it’s entirely doable given the rapidly improving economics of renewables generally and solar particularly.” The momentum is already swinging towards low carbon electricity. Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, due for activation in August, is predicted to push the renewable sector from its current 13% share of the electricity market to 25% by 2027.The rise of solar

In 2015, solar photovoltaic installations are forecast to rise by 27%, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). This rise has been aided by the soon-to-expire solar investment tax credit (ITC), which the industry said Clinton will have to revive.

“Clinton’s ambitious goal for solar is only possible if solar continues its impressive trajectory. SEIA is working to extend the solar ITC and remove statewide barriers that inhibit the growth of solar,” said SEIA president and CEO, Rhone Resch.

Stay tuned for our next blog and the rest of the article.

Climate Change and the Unexpected Impact on Health and Healthcare Costs

Renewable Energy Health Benefits

(sourced from https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com)

If we stop and think about the connection between health and pollution, it raises the question “Could preventing climate change have a huge impact on global health costs?” It is a different perspective than most would take on the reason to become more environmentally friendly, but it is a sound reason to motivate the public toward a greener way of life. Waste to Energy Systems believes that switching the world over to renewable energy sources like its downdraft gasification system, bioHearth®, will create a healthier planet and population. A recent article on Scientific America discusses this question.

“Moving to clean energy technologies could benefit public health today and save us billions of dollars, according to a new report from The Lancet medical journal.
In “Health and Climate Change: policy responses to protect public health” a group of European and Chinese academics built upon a 2009 report in The Lancet that outlined the expected public health impacts of climate change (full disclosure – the group of academics includes the author of this post). These impacts include increasing instances of respiratory, cardiovascular, and vector-borne diseases as well as under nutrition and mental health challenges.
But, even more immediately, the authors discuss how moving away from carbon-intensive energy technologies could improve public health today by reducing other types of air pollution including particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).
The core of this discussion lies on the fact that energy technologies that produce greenhouse gases also often produce these other air pollutants simultaneously. For example, diesel and gasoline vehicles, coal power plants, biomass (for example, wood and charcoal) for cooking, and many industrial processes (for example, mining, cement manufacturing, and smelting) all produce both carbon dioxide and particulate matter (PM).
These other air pollutants lead to higher rates of illness and premature death in exposed populations.
In the United Kingdom, air pollution from coal power plants is responsible for an estimated £3.1 billion per year in added health costs to treat conditions including lung cancer and chronic bronchitis. Overall, air pollution from the UK’s power sector is responsible for approximately 3,800 premature deaths each year due to respiratory disease alone. Each year, pollution from the UK’s transportation sector leads to 7,500 premature deaths across the country.
Air pollution in China has an even more dramatic impact on human health. In 2010, air pollution led to an estimated 1.2 million premature deaths and the loss of 25 million healthy years of life. These premature deaths correspond to economic losses of up to USD 1.4 trillion. The average person in China will lose over 3 years (40 months) of life due to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution even though the country already spends an estimated 0.37% of its GDP on cleaning the air.
Countries could quickly and economically reduce air pollution and its direct impacts on public health by transitioning to low-carbon energy technologies, according to The Lancet report. For example, a combination of more fuel efficient vehicles and increasing amounts of walking and cycling in the U.K.’s urban areas could lead to a net savings of more than £15 billion by 2030 to the country’s social security and healthcare systems.
The overall message from the new Lancet report is that climate change mitigation could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century.  Much of this opportunity lies in avoiding future negative health impacts from climate change. However, an arguably stronger – and certainly more immediate – case lies in the immediate benefits resulting from lower levels of air pollution as we move to low-carbon energy technologies.”
Article written by Melissa C. Lott, published on www.scientificamerica.com

Largest Renewable Energy Projects in the World

Every renewable energy project is just as important as the next when it comes to changing the world’s view on its energy sources. But in this blog, the Waste to Energy Systems team wanted to recognize the amazing projects that make up the Largest Renewable Energy Projects in the World.



1. World’s Largest Solar PV Plant: The giant Topaz Solar Farms in the Carrizo Plains in California claims the title for Largest Solar PV Plant in the world. It is composed of 9 million solar panels and creates 550 MW of electricity. That is enough to power 160,000 homes!



Worlds Largest Biomass Plant


2. World’s Largest Biomass Plant: Dry Biomass-Fired Power Plant Oy Alholmens Kraft in Pietarsaari, Finland is known as the largest biomass plant in the world. The plant produces 550 MW of heat, 240 MW of electricity and 160 MW of steam.



Largest Wave Power Plant


3. World’s Largest Wave Power Plant: The world’s first and biggest wave plant is the 2.25 megawatt Aguçadoura in Portugal. Even though it does not have competition, it is still an amazing size for being the first of its kind.




World's Largest Wind Farm


4. World’s Largest Wind Farm: With an end goal of 20,000 MW by 2020, the Gansu Wind Farm in China will continue to be the World’s Largest Wind Farm as it grows. It is currently the largest with a capacity of 6,000 MW.

Largest Landfill Gas Plant


5. World’s Largest Landfill Gas Capture Plant: Located in Puente Hills in Whittier, California, the largest landfill also hosts the largest landfill gas capture plant. It creates on average 50 MW a year of electricity and has not yet hit its peak capabilities.



Largest Hydroelectric Plant


6. World’s Largest Hydroelectric Dam:  China, yet again, is home to one of the largest renewable energy projects, the Three Gorges Dam. Located on the Yangtze River, it produces 22,500 MW of electricity. It measures 600ft tall by 7600ft long.

Wildfires: An Increasing Sign of Climate Change?

With wildfires rampaging across parts of Alaska, British Columbia and California, we have to stop and truly ask ourselves if this is a huge red flag for climate change. So far this year, 4.4 million acres in Alaska alone have burned so far this year. This season of wildfires is 6th on the list of worst burn seasons to date with it expected to increase to the 5th worst and it is only mid July! Between the Canadian and Alaskan wildfires, over 11 million acres have burned… to add perspective that is 3 times the size of Connecticut.

(sourced from www.time.com)

(sourced from www.time.com)

Some may argue that wildfires are a natural part of the ecosystem and they are. They help clear floor vegetation in forest, provide space for regeneration of new shrubbery and plants for animal habitats and aid in killing off disease that harm vegetation and wildlife.So, what is the big deal about the wildfires we are seeing today? First off, the severity and intensity of the burn is much higher than the natural, cyclical burn when the ecosystem is balanced. Higher spring and summer temperatures and earlier spring snow-melt typically cause soils to be drier for longer, increasing the likelihood of drought and a longer wildfire season, particularly in the western United States.

While severe wildfires have been observed to occur more frequently and this trend is projected to continue throughout the 21st century, it is worth noting that not every year has an equal likelihood of experiencing droughts or wildfires. Natural, cyclical weather occurrences, such as El Niño events, also affect the likelihood of wildfires by affecting levels of precipitation and moisture and lead to year-by-year variability in the potential for drought and wildfires regionally. Nonetheless, because temperatures and precipitation levels are projected to alter further over the course of this century, the overall potential for wildfires in the United States, especially the southern states, is likely to increase as well.

(sourced from www.climate-charts.com) A map showing the increase in temperatures across the globe which play a role in more severe wildfires.

(sourced from www.climate-charts.com) A map showing the increase in temperatures across the globe which play a role in more severe wildfires.

Taking actions to stop climate change like renewable energy technology will aid in decreasing our changes of strengthened wild fires. The environment can return to its natural cyclical process that maintains the health of the world’s forests and ecosystem.

Eleven Reasons Why Sustainable Farming is Necessary

A key industry that can make a big difference in conserving the environment is farming. Currently, industrial farming or factory farming is the mainstay. An industrial farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised infactory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of the animals’ welfare (www.aspca.org). Here are eleven reasons why factory farms need to become sustainable.

(sourced from fairwarning.org)

(sourced from fairwarning.org)

(sourced from nationofchange.org)

(sourced from nationofchange.org)







  1. About 10 billion land animals in the United States are raised for dairy, meat, and eggs each year.
  2. Factory farming accounts for 37% of methane (CH4) emissions, which has more than 20 times the global warming potential of CO2.
  3. Manure can also contain traces of salt and heavy metals, which can end up in bodies of water and accumulate in the sediment, concentrating as they move up the food chain.
  4. When manure is repeatedly overapplied to farm land it causes dangerous levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in the water supply. In such excessive amounts, nitrogen robs water of oxygen and destroys aquatic life.
  5. Burning fossil fuels to produce fertilizers for animal feed crops may emit 41 million metric tons of CO2 per year.
  6. Globally, deforestation for animal grazing and feed crops is estimated to emit 2.4 billion tons of CO2 every year.
  7. Corn, wheat, and rice, the fast-growing crops on which humanity depends for survival, are among the most nitrogen hungry of all plants.
  8. Large-scale animal factories often give animals antibiotics to promote growth, or to compensate for illness resulting from crowded conditions. These antibiotics enter the environment and the food chain.
  9. Factory farms contribute to air pollution by releasing compounds such as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and methane.
  10. The US Department of Agriculture estimates that confined farm animals generate more than 450 million tonnes of manure annually, 3 times more raw waste than generated by Americans.
  11. The waste lagoons on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) not only pollute our groundwater, but deplete it as well. Many of the farms use the groundwater for cleaning, cooling, and drinking. (sourced from www.dosomething.org)