We as humans are naturally inquisitive and we have all been down that oh-so-tempting rabbit hole: what if…? What if I could fly? What if I didn’t pay my taxes? What if I learned to speak Quechua? What if I ate this entire quart of ice cream? Well, you’re not alone and when it comes to our future as a sustainably-minded race, I for one am here to follow through on some of these musings. Over the next few weeks, this blog will offer a glimpse into possible realities.

According to the FAO, nearly half of all food produced worldwide is wasted in private kitchens, restaurants, processing plants, supermarkets, and during transportation. In the U.S., as much as 30% of our food goes to waste after production. This means over $48 billion is pulled from our collective pockets and tossed right into the garbage can every year. Anyone who has worked in a high traffic restaurant or eaten at a buffet can attest to just how much we waste on a daily basis. All this discarded food is sent to rot in landfills, where it generates tons upon tons of methane – a greenhouse gas 23 times more destructive than CO₂.

On the federal level, the collection of food waste and yard waste would not only immediately decrease the amount of organic material that is heaped into landfills, it would also begin the shift in consciousness from “waste” to “resource.” Food waste still has a lot to give. It can be composted and used as a rich soil amendment, or it can be converted into energy to power the community. It can even be converted into new, usable products!

Food waste is some of the most energy dense material out there. As the majority of you are likely aware, BME’s very own AGATE system is capable of processing all manner of organic waste to produce biogas for energy, and biochemicals to replace toxic petrochemicals. This not only includes food scraps and moldy leftovers, but soiled napkins and compostable paper products. Imagine then that each scrap of food saved from the maw of the garbage bin is a battery, holding the potential to power your home and displace petroleum. We may yet add a new phrase to the environmentally conscious vocabulary: “Don’t throw that away, it’s AGATE-able!”

Think this is a pipedream of the future? In many cities it is already reality. Across the U.S., temporary pilot programs have been setup to test the feasibility of food waste collection in their particular urban environment. Such programs have been underway in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Colorado. Longstanding regional programs have flourished and expanded in areas like California’s Alameda County and our own King County. Seattle boasts both recycling and organic (food/yard) waste collection mandates. San Francisco has also enacted mandatory residential organics collection. Since the enactment of this mandate, the amount of food waste collected in San Francisco rose from 400 to 500 tons per day.

The big concern on critics’ lips has been monitoring and enforcing these mandates. There’s really no getting around the fact that the idea of someone inspecting your trash is creepy at best and invasive at worst. That being said, we have yet to see a takeover of the Department of Sanitization by Big Brother in any of the cities currently practicing mandatory food waste collection. It may help to think of food waste mandates as an extension of litter or hazardous material laws. And when it comes to fines, we can breathe a collective sigh of relief. According to officials from Seattle Public Utilities, families failing to separate food waste from their trash do not immediately receive a fine; suffering instead the minor inconvenience of having their trash tagged and left until it has been properly sorted. Only after a residence has been tagged 3 times, will the family receive a fine ($50 in case you’re curious). These fines are intended to provide punitive incentive, not line city coffers. In 2008, only 18 of the 6,000 apartment buildings served by Seattle Public Utilities were fined.

In most cases, cities across the globe with mandatory food waste pickup report a rise in the standard of living. Compostable food waste no longer besmirches apartment building trash chutes and basements, affording tenants a distinctly fresher outlook on life. Salvaged food waste has enriched the soil of local parks and gardens, nourishing plants and improving the public experience. Private companies and municipalities with waste to energy agreements are enjoying the mutual benefits of the shift from “waste” to “resource.” It’s hard to argue with something this full of win, and we can only hope that this regional trend will soon go national.

Interestingly enough bees are an apt reflection of environmental damage. An extreme reduction in the number of honey bees (Apis mellifera to you Latin lovers), feral and commercial, has been recorded over the past several decades. The mysterious phenomenon was dubbed “colony collapse disorder” or CCD in 2006, by which time some areas were reporting colony losses of up to 90% according to USDA. Why mysterious? CCD is characterized by a sudden, complete absence of bees in a colony (including dead bees…spooky, eh?). There is, however, a presence of “capped brood,” i.e. unhatched baby bees, which adult bees would normally never abandon. The vacant colonies also typically contain well stocked larders of both honey and bee pollen, which remain untouched by other bee colonies for some time after they are abandoned. Confirmed cases of CCD have been recorded in 24 different states, portions of Canada, India, Brazil, and parts of Europe. During the winter of 2008/2009, a total loss of 28.6% of commercial honey bee colonies was recorded in the U.S. – 15% of which was confirmed as CCD related.

Loss of the honey bee population would not only be a disastrous event for a certain honey loving bear, but for all of us. Bees aren’t just little honey making machines; they are a very important link in our economy. The bee product industry in the state of Georgia alone generates $70 million per year through the sale of honey, beeswax, queen bees and package bees. Apis mellifera are responsible for the pollination of thousands of plant species, including those we humans depend on for food. A full 1/3 of the human diet can be traced back to bee pollination, a service they kindly provide free of charge. A Canadian study estimated that the annual benefit of bee pollination totaled above $443 million per year. In 2000, a study at Cornell University estimated the value of U.S. crops that are entirely dependent on bee pollination exceeds $15 billion. The economic value bees provide, however, extends far beyond food crops. Bee pollination accounts for over 16% of flowering plant species in the world, sustaining plants that prevent erosion, increase property value, please our jaded senses, and are a key part of natural ecosystems.

While no single culprit has been identified, the causes of CCD have been speculated upon for years, ranging from cell phone signals to climate change and from parasites to pesticides. The explanation now emerging is of a complex condition, triggered by a combination of causes. This is nature we’re discussing after all.

So how is such a complex condition treated? Beekeepers have had some success by increasing the diversity of plants they’re bees feed upon. Bees that feed from a range of plants show signs of healthier immune systems than those forced to feed on acres of monocropping. One of the conclusions of a new French study is that bees need to ingest a range of proteins to create their various chemical defenses; an unvaried diet leaves them open to disease. Meticulous hive sanitation has also proved worthwhile, eliminating the instances of parasites like Nosema apis. In the U.K. farmers receive financial incentives to utilize wildlife-friendly practices. Dr. David Aston, chair of the British Beekeepers’ Association technical committee, says he believes there is a great opportunity to halt this decline by simply restoring natural diversity. “That makes landscapes much more attractive as well, so it’s a win-win situation,” he says.

Great or small, any step taken towards raising awareness or decreasing instances of CCD helps create healthier bees, which will create healthier crops and flowers, which will create healthier, happier humans.

Percentages of U.S. agricultural crop dependence on bee pollination.

So is coal the new lean, green fuel of the future? There are certainly some hoping and arguing that this is the case. With uncanny timing, considering the various discussions of capping or taxing C0₂ emissions, coal is being rebranded. “Clean coal” has been the buzzword on the lips of politicians and lay people alike, with the elusive promise that coal will be the low cost, low emissions fuel capable of maintaining our way of life. Heck, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) even called for the U.S. to become the “Saudi Arabia of clean coal” in their recent New York Times op-ed.

While it sure would be convenient, there’s just one glaring problem with this solution: coal isn’t ever going to be clean. Sooty little chimney sweeps and blacken chutes aside, coal is one dirty little lump. It contains vast amounts of sulfur and nitrogen particulates (that cause acid rain), traces of mercury and other toxic heavy metals. Then of course there’s the unfortunate fact that coal is far and away the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States today. And not only is coal bad for the environment, coal emissions have been determined to contribute to 10,000 premature deaths in the U.S. every year.

While we have come a long way in making coal cleaner since the early days of coal power, we’re a far cry from being anywhere near clean coal.

The crux of the clean coal pitch is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) – essentially bottling and burying the C0₂ that is produced when coal is burned. While this sounds great in theory, in practice it’s pretty near impossible. Why? Because every pound of coal produces about 2.5 pounds of C0₂. If we flash back to high school chemistry, we’ll remember that when coal burns, oxygen in the air combines with carbon in the coal in what is called an exothermic, or heat-producing, reaction. So far so good for energy generation but with this added oxygen, the C0₂ now weighs more than the coal’s carbon “body”. This is where CCS is meant to step in to keep all that C0₂ out of the atmosphere. The process goes as follows: exhaust from the coal power plant is forced through a liquid solvent, which absorbs the C0₂. This liquid is later reheated to release the gas in another facility where the C0₂ is compressed to 100 times normal atmospheric pressure and is ready for storage.

But here’s where things really start going sideways. A typical 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant produces close to 10,000 tons of C0₂ a day. All together, U.S. coal power plants produce 1.5 billon tons a year. To capture all that, we would have to fill 30 million barrels with liquid C0₂ every single day. How are we supposed to transport and store all of that? To put this in perspective, it took about a century to build the infrastructure we use to store, transport and distribute petroleum. Serious plans to implement and finance such a vast infrastructure project have yet to be publicly proposed, let alone examined. According to the Congressional Research Service, “There are important unanswered questions about pipeline network requirements, economic regulation, utility cost recovery, regulatory classification of C0₂ itself, and pipeline safety.” Then there’s the increased energy CCS capable coal plants would require. Capturing and compressing C0₂ would increase the fuel needs of a coal-fired plant by 25-40%, which means more mountaintop mining, more fly ash, and more transportation fuel. And, of course, it’s a dangerous gamble whether the damn stuff will stay buried at the end of all this…

The frustrating part is that more practical, cost effective means of decreasing the carbon footprint of coal are out there. Though clean coal will likely remain a myth, significant and immediately viable steps could be taken right now to make it cleaner.

Blue Marble Energy offers several such solutions, though (and this is a very good thing) we are by no means the only ones. A BME AGATE plant co-located with a coal-fired power plant would provide several key steps towards cleaner coal. Like a pilot fish to a shark, this symbiotic relationship would offer the following perks: flue gas from the plant could be passed through the anaerobic digester, effectively scrubbing particulates like heavy metals, and sulfur; post-digester biomass materials like lignin and other non-digestible fibers could be fed into the plant along with coal; biogas from the digester could provide energy offset for the plant, while waste heat from the plant could be utilized to increase biochemical production.

With all the hope and drive for a more sustainable world it can be hard not to drink the Kool-Aid on things like clean coal. But the cold hard truth is there’s no easy fix to our fossil fuel addiction, and anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell something. We have to be willing to put in the work, and take small steps towards our goals. After all, it’s only by putting one foot in front of the other that we can climb mountains.

TGER, TGER, burning bright.

Arguments for sustainability can be counted on to come from the usual suspects like Al Gore and Ed Begley, but what if the call to action came from a different source, one long accustomed to sounding the muster?

Top brass in the Department of Defense have begun to take the idea of going green seriously for the uncomplicated reason that it makes strategic sense for national security. The United States military is the single largest purchaser and consumer of petroleum on the planet, burning through 340,000 barrels of oil per day according to NPR. That is 1.5 percent of the total energy consumed in the U.S. “If the Department of Defense were a country, it would rank about 38th in the world for oil consumption, right behind the Philippines, a country with a population of 90.5 million people,” says Michael Graham Richard of treehugger.com.

Not surprisingly, the Air Force is the largest petroleum consumer of the U.S. military branches. What is surprising is that the USAF have taken an early lead in the chase for the wild green yonder, winning the EPA’s “Green Power” award in 2006, snagging 4 more renewable energy awards in recent years, and quickly becoming the leading purchaser/consumer of wind power in the U.S. And this is not a token gesture but a committed, coordinated push towards energy independence by the Air Force. The Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada features the largest solar array in North America, saving the Air Force $1 million a year. Dyess (TX), Minot (ND), and Fairchild (WA) Air Force Bases all purchase 100 percent of their electricity from renewable sources.

In 2006, the Department of Defense spent $13.6 billion on energy. Every month U.S. Armed Forces use 1.2 million barrels of oil in Iraq alone. James Woolsey, former CIA director and energy advisor to the Pentagon, estimates that every gallon of oil costs the U.S. (i.e. you and me) $100 when supply line maintenance and security are factored in. But money isn’t the only issue. Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer notes that 70 percent of U.S. military ground traffic in Iraq’s Anbar province is tankers transporting oil to the troops. He, like many others military officers, has requested solutions that would not require these easily targeted vehicles to make such frequent trips.

Both the Air Force and the Army have been pursuing waste to energy technologies for the DOD that could help solve this problem. The Army has developed one such solution for bases in the field: the Tactical Garbage to Energy Refinery or TGER (yes, that’s “tiger” – trust the Army to make burning garbage sound cool). Recently tested in Baghdad, the TGER separates mixed trash into wet and dry waste. The wet waste is converted into ethanol for the generation of electricity, while the dry waste is crushed into pellets and gasified to create energy. Each TGER unit has a capacity of 60 kilowatts. This solution is particularly elegant since it reduces the amount of waste that has to be removed from a base as well as reducing the number of dangerous trips by oil transports to the base.

Not to be left out, the Navy has been looking decidedly green around the gills. They, like the Air Force, have begun testing aviation biofuel (also known as biojet). Initial performance tests are planned for a 50/50 blend of jatropha, camelina, and algae biofuels with petroleum-based jet fuel. In testing by commercial airlines biofuel blends have proved more fuel efficient than petro-fuels, and feedstocks like camelina show an 80 percent decrease in lifecycle emissions. The cloud point of biofuel (the temperature threshold at which the fuel crystallizes) has posed a problem in the past but rapid improvements in fuel additives, such as those being developed right here at Blue Marble Energy, will greatly speed the advancement and performance of sustainably produced biofuels in both jets and ground vehicles.

The U.S. Armed Forces’ interest in sustainable resources proves yet again that going green is not just about warm fuzzy feelings or high minded morality, but rather a very straightforward choice between what is and what is not viable.

So next time the Blue Angels go roaring over head here in Seattle, take a moment to reconsider the stereotype of biofuel being just for hippy buses.

We are very excited to announce that we are launching BME’s first product featuring our carbon neutral bioesters. Through collaboration with local couture perfumery Sweet Anthem, we have developed a limited run fragrance line, EOS, which features both feminine and unisex scents. This fragrance line is a perfect example of the immediate, high value application of BME biochemicals, which act as direct replacements to petrochemicals already in the market.

EOS was recently featured in a light-hearted KING 5 News holiday story, which drew a strong connection between the feedstock used to make the bioesters and the fragrance itself. While we agree a beer-flavored perfume would be, well interesting, EOS is something else entirely.

Blue Marble Energy’s EOS fragrance line is petrochemical and cruelty-free, containing only bioderived and organic materials. The fragrances feature a special selection of Blue Marble Energy’s carbon neutral bioester top notes carefully blended with Sweet Anthem’s custom fragrance heart and low notes.

Conventionally, perfumes and colognes contain odorants and musks that are synthesized from petrochemicals. Many of these commonly used ingredients, like polycyclic synthetic musks, can cause severe endocrine disruption and even have carcinogenic effects on the human body (see our recent chemicals blog for more). Large quantities of these synthetic musks and odorants can be found in cleaning products and detergents as well as fragrances. Certain naturally derived odorants also pose problems. The demand for aromatic materials like agarwood and civet musk (obtained from an innocent and furry relation of the mongoose) has led to illegal trafficking and the endangerment of species.

To make BME’s bioesters, our science team starts with certified organic spent brewery grain (from our neighbors at Fremont Brewing), which is processed through our patented AGATE technology to create volatile fatty acids (VFAs). Through catalysis, bioesters are then extracted from the VFA stream and are ready to be blended with Sweet Anthem’s fragrance oils. The feminine version of EOS is a very modern, bright, floral, tea-based scent, while the masculine or unisex version is characterized by citrus and cognac with hints of powdery apricot.

EOS will be offered in a limited run, and while supplies last you can purchase it here on the website or, if you’re a local, come on by and pick it up directly! Email info@bluemarbleenergy.net for more information or to set up a pickup.

So next time you’re knocking back a tall boy from Fremont Brewing, you can rest easy knowing that you’re doing your part for a healthy planet…that smells damn good too.

Flavor Flav!

Evidence points to the development of the human sense of taste as a mechanism to avoid being poisoned. How strange then that every day we are fooled into eating a substance that poisons ourselves and our planet, namely, oil.

Human taste buds can generally detect about half a dozen basic flavors including sweet, sour, salty, bitter, astringent, and the less well known umami (a Japanese word for “tasty” or “brothy”, it signifies the rich taste of amino acids in meat, shellfish, mushrooms, etc.). When compared to the sense of smell, however, taste is very limited. What we perceive as “flavor” is in fact primarily composed of the aroma being released by what’s in our mouth. Smell is responsible for about 90 percent of a food’s taste. The human nose can detect smells present in quantities as tiny as parts per trillion (equivalent to about 0.000000000003 percent). Smell is also inextricably linked to memory. Food manufacturers capitalize on this fact, creating “comfort food” flavors that illicit childhood or happy memories.

The flavoring industry appeared on the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, hand in hand with processed foods. The early food processors looked to the established perfume houses of Europe for their first food additives. Germany took the early lead in flavor production, thanks to its powerful chemical industry. German scientists were said to have discovered artificial flavors by accidently creating methyl anthranilate (which happens to be the chief grape flavor in Kool-Aid). Post World War II, the flavoring industry found its way to the U.S., settling snuggly in beside the great fashion houses in New York City, and later expanding into New Jersey. The American flavor industry now boasts an annual revenue of over $1.4 billion. Every year in the U.S. approximately 10,000 new additive-heavy, processed foods are introduced to consumers.

Today the flavoring industry has become incredibly precise and complex. Flavor houses guard their secrets like jealous lovers, and the flavorists they employ must be part skilled chemist, part inspired artist. Like wine, flavors have a “top note” generally followed by a “dry-down” and a “leveling-out.” Flavorists even concern themselves with the “mouth feel” of food. Different chemicals are responsible for each stage of a flavor. Some of the more complex aromas, such as that of coffee or cooking meat, consist of volatile gases from upwards of a thousand different chemicals. The simple smell of strawberry is created through the interaction of over 350 chemicals. Despite all their complexity, flavor additives generally appear at the tail end of ingredient lists and often cost less than the food’s packaging. This is because flavor additives are present in miniscule quantities. As an example, the dominant flavor of a bell pepper can be detected by the human tongue in quantities as low as 0.02 parts per billion.

The difference between artificial and natural flavors is somewhat arbitrary and not a little absurd, based more on how the flavor is made rather than on what it contains. A natural flavor is created by extracting the flavorant from the source (like a pineapple say), through a process which can involve either solvents, distillation, or methods of brute force. The extract is then typically purified before being added to food products. An artificial flavor is often chemically identical to a natural flavor, but has been manufactured rather than extracted. To create it, the flavorist must isolate and mix together naturally occurring aromatic chemicals, or create a novel chemical compound that possess the desired flavor (bionic pineapple!).

The upshot of all this, is that it’s hard for a consumer to know what they are getting. A natural flavor isn’t necessarily better for you than an artificial one. The classic example is almond flavor or benzaldehyde. When derived from natural sources, like peach and apricot pits, it contains traces of hydrogen cyanide, a deadly poison. Artificially derived benzaldehyde, manufactured by mixing clove oil and amyl acetate does not contain cyanide. The FDA doesn’t require companies to disclose the secret recipes of their flavor or color additives, provided the chemicals in them are those considered by the agency to be “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). While this might not be cause for panic, it allows some pretty strange things to get into our mouths. As an example, you might be interested to know the disturbing origins of red food coloring. One of the widely used red, pink, purple, and orange colorings is cochineal extract, often appearing on a label as “carmine” or “carminic acid.” It is made from the dehydrated bodies of female Dactylopius coccus and their unhatched larvae, a small insect that feeds on red cactus berries. These insects are farmed, collected, killed by immersion in hot water, dried, ground into pigment, and shipped to your local grocery store where they can be found in food products ranging from strawberry yogurt, to fruit fillings, to pink grapefruit juice. Bon appetite.

But what’s even more troubling than ground up bugs in our food is the oil. And I’m not talking about canola. Because of the high cost of natural extraction, almost every artificial flavor is produced from petroleum. These flavors often have more ingredients than the food they’re going into.

There is a solution with all the warm and fuzzy connotations of natural flavors, the price advantage of artificial flavors, and best of all without the use of oil. Some of the most groundbreaking advances in flavor manufacturing are now taking place in the field of biotechnology. Complex flavors are being made through enzymatic reactions, fermentation, and fungal cultures. World, meet USDA bioderived flavors. This new classification of flavor is derived from organic sources and has the same chemical profile as naturally occurring flavors without the prohibitive cost associations.

Here at Blue Marble we are using naturally occurring bacteria in specifically formulated cultures to produce our biochemicals for use in these bioderived flavors. Because all our biochemicals come from organic feedstocks they fit nicely into this category. Thanks to the quickly growing market for drop-in alternatives like these, we can decrease our dependence on oil one bite at a time.

Biochemicals are compounds that mirror the structure of synthetic chemicals but have been produced from natural or organic sources rather than oil. Biochemicals and green chemicals have been somewhat interchangeable terms, though the latter is simply a loose umbrella term for anything that represents a reduction of hazardous substances.

With the passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) began exploring new ways to develop or improve chemical products and processes that were less hazardous to humans and the environment. This marked the beginnings of an entirely new chemical industry. The goal was safer, cleaner yet still effective chemicals. Here at Blue Marble we have taken it a step further. Our driving principles in the production of biochemicals include:

• Displacing petrochemicals with bioderived, carbon-neutral biochemicals from renewable feedstocks.
• Designing biochemical products that are fully functional drop-in replacements to petrochemicals, with significantly reduced environmental and toxicological effects.
• Producing biochemicals in a way that to prevents waste and leaves no waste to treat or clean up.

Now that we have an understanding of what biochemicals are, let us move on to discuss which biochemicals Blue Marble Energy is producing. BME makes various chain length organic acids which are processed into the following classes of bioderived materials: short chain esters, short chain amides, ammonia, and biogas containing CO₂, H₂, CH₄, and H₂S.

A few examples of Blue Marbles esters are:

Methyl-propionate: a short chain methyl ester with a fragrance characteristic of fresh rum, fruity and/or strawberry. This ester enjoys widespread utilization as a flavoring, but can also be reacted and polymerized to produce a biosourced form of methyl methacrylate which is used in the manufacturing of plastics. Because Blue Marble can produce all the components of MMA from biosourced materials we are able to completely displace the use of petroleum in the production of this product.

Ethyl-butyrate is a short chain ethyl-ester with a fragrance characteristically associated with pineapple and/or orange juice. This ester is the primary pineapple flavor in alcoholic drinks as well as a well used plasticizer for cellulose materials (such as cellophane).

Iso-propyl formate is an ethereal solvent with a cocoa scent profile. In high purity, and mixed with other carriers, it becomes a specialty solvent for pharmaceutical grade proteins.

Butyl-butyrate is an 8 carbon ester that has a heavy banana/pineapple scent. Blue Marble Energy is especially interested in butyl-butyrate for its freezing and boiling point properties which allows it to be used directly as a fuel, as an additive for fuels, and in extreme conditions as a lubricant component.

Methyl-valerate is a 6 carbon ester that is both a fragrance, plasticizer, and interestingly enough is used as a sedative in some Eastern European countries.

All of the short chain amides that BME produces are base components for further chemical synthesis. A small sampling of Blue Marble’s amides include: acetamide, butyramide, hexonamide, and caprionamide.

As an example, acetamide is currently showing good performance as a plasticizer for soy protein based biopolymers as an alternative to glycerol, as well as in other compounds. It is also widely used as a solvent, and as a component in lacquers and soldering flux.

Blue Marble’s green ammonia is completely bioderived from the degradation of proteins and amino acids in the fermentation process. It can be utilized as a fertilizer for agricultural production, in low concentrations as a household cleaner or disinfectant, and for power generation through combustion in compression engines.

Each of these biochemicals represents not only a decrease in toxic petrochemicals, but a decrease in the total carbon footprint of any product in which they find a home. Anyone care for an organic, carbon-neutral piña colada?

We are literally saturated with chemicals, some of them with known toxicological properties. We’ve all become familiar with the toxic effects of eating mercury-laden fish, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Exposure to these chemicals happens in the most banal of ways: shampooing your hair, putting on lipstick, moisturizing your skin, drinking a cup of brewed coffee, handling industrial packaging, cooking with non-stick pans, driving your car, and even just sleeping.

Over 30 years ago the federal government began regulating environmental toxins with the Toxic Substances and Control Act of 1976. This act established the beginnings of a weak system for testing and regulating toxic chemical substances. The problem is that even 30 years ago chemicals were already are all around us. Over 60,000 chemicals produced previous to the 1976 act were grandfathered in with free passes to any kind of testing or regulation.

Last year in the New York Times, cancer researcher and survivor Dr. David Servan-Schrieber (a founder of Doctors Without Borders) summed up the problem: “Since 1940, we have seen in Western societies a marked and rapid increase in common types of cancer.” While the argument of environment and lifestyle is valid, there is a certain point at which the healthiest of lifestyles in the unhealthiest of environments quickly becomes a losing battle. The average adult human carries around hundreds of synthetic chemicals in their body. The majority of these synthetic chemicals are known to cause abnormal hormonal activity, and hormonal disruptions carry a higher risk of disease. The science of testing for chemicals in the body is called biomonitoring. Let’s return to our list of everyday activities and see what chemicals we can pick up:

Shampooing your hair exposes you to parabens, compounds known to cause hormonal disruptions by mimicking estrogen in the body, and 1,4-dioxane which is “known to the State of California to cause cancer.”

Moisturizing your hole-covered skin can expose you to phthalates (often listed on skincare products as “fragrance”) which have been known to cause reproductive disorders by disrupting the endocrine or hormonal system.

Drinking a cup of brewed coffee can expose you to decaBDE, a flame retardant in the plastic belonging to a group of chemicals called PBDEs. The ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) states that: “nothing definite is know about the health effects of PBDEs in people. Practically all of the available information is from studies of laboratory animals.” According to a study by the Illinois state EPA: “based on animal studies, the possible health effects of decaBDE in humans involve the liver, thyroid, reproductive/developmental effects, and neurological effects.”

The list goes on to include more flame retardant chemicals in bedding and upholstery, lead and parabens in make-up that cause infertility, and PFOA in non-stick cookware that is associated with testicular, liver and pancreatic cancers. Like decaBDE, the majority of these chemicals in regular use today have unknown effects on humans. Think back to the days when lead was common in paint, asbestos in walls and ceilings, and no official reports were available on the toxicological effects of these chemicals. Around 1,000 new chemicals are added every year to the approximately 85,000 already on the federal registry.

While there is no going back to a chemical free world, there are alternatives. Over 90 percent of chemical in use today are made from petroleum. No one in their right mind would hop into a barrel of crude to freshen up, or down a bottle of oil with lunch. There are certain things our common sense simply will not allow us to do; preservation of the species and all that. Knowledge is power, and it’s the knowing that allows us to steer clear of things dangerous to our health. Check out the nonprofit watchdog Environmental Working Group at www.ewg.org for informational databases of everyday products.

As oil supplies dwindle and prices rise, so too will the demand for biochemicals. While we can’t break away from our chemically dependent society, we can have a say in what those chemicals are, where they come from and which ones we allow into our bodies. Organic, bioderived chemicals offer a huge opportunity for the health and well-being of our bodies, our families and our planet.

Going organic never made so much sense.

No one now denies the world is constantly changing. The change in climate that we are experiencing could very well prove the ultimate test of humanity’s ability to adapt. Do we have that skill to adapt? Our actions or lack thereof in the coming years will answer that question.

After nearly a decade of misguided inaction, American leadership finally has the opportunity and privilege to reeducate the public and lead the global climate discussion when the U.N. meets in Copenhagen this December.

President Obama has yet to announce whether he will attend the Copenhagen talks personally but his inaugural statement to “roll back the specter of a warming planet” will fail unless the U.S. has demonstrated results to give weight and credibility to that promise. He must show decisively that science in America has been restored “to its rightful place” in order to lead the Copenhagen talks to strong climate regulation and law.

On September 30th, Obama backed up words with action, announcing that the EPA would move forward with curbing emissions without waiting for Congress. “We are not going to continue with business as usual,” E.P.A. administrator Lisa Jackson said. “We have the tools and the technology to move forward today, and we are using them.” This long anticipated and highly controversial proposal (like most things worth their salt) is the first real step toward regulating emissions and could take effect as early as 2011. The announcement was strategically timed to fall on the same day that Democratic Senators John Kerry (MA) and Barbara Boxer (CA) unveiled their climate change and energy bill, which will face a long, hard haul across the Senate floor in the coming months.

And it’s not just government who are coming to realize the necessity of immediate action in response to our changing planet.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have consistently worked against climate legislature and have threatened to sue the E.P.A. for imposing controls on CO₂. Because of this stance, many companies have not renewed membership. The latest to jump ship was Exelon, the nation’s largest electric and gas utility company. Exelon CEO John Rowe had this to say: “Putting a price on carbon is essential because it will force us to do the cheapest things, like energy efficiency, first.”

Business as usual seems easy now, but will prove fatal in the long term. The Earth is changing around us and while we can’t suddenly grow gills that breathe CO₂, we can and must adapt in other ways. The economic incentives are there, the moral incentives are there, and the eyes of future generation are on us.

As President Obama so eloquently stated during his campaign: “…our time is now, this is our moment.”

Contact your elected officials here and tell them to go kick ass and take names in Copenhagen: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions will lead to an increase in average global temperatures of more than 4 degrees Celsius by 2050. While this number seems small, the effects globally would be catastrophic. Last July, world leaders committed to keep temperatures from rising above 2 degrees Celsius. To reach that goal, global emissions must peak before 2015, and be in decline by 2020. That leaves 6 years for nations across the globe to stabilize emissions in synchronized harmony.

So what’s the hold up?

Change is a difficult thing to coordinate, consensus across countries and cultures even more so. Several myths have continued to circulate that have been known to either obstruct effective decision making, or give an excuse to avoid it. Some American leaders have argued that U.S. shouldn’t have to bridle emission if other countries aren’t stepping up. Not only is this irresponsible, it is now incorrect. India has implemented the most ambitious solar energy goal in the world and launched a plan to radically improve efficiency in homes. Newly elected Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama renewed his campaign pledge to reduce Japan’s emissions 25 percent by 2020. Chinese President Hu Jintao announced that China would elevate its use of renewable and nuclear energy to 15 percent of the country’s total energy consumption also by 2020.

The loudest objection to climate law and regulation is the idea that cap-and-trade will stunt economic growth. This “moral intervention” in economic markets is routinely argued to result in dead weight loss (see Harberger’s Triangle). The problem is that this argument assumes an already perfect market, which, as recent events have made quite clear, ours is not. The economic costs of pricing carbon are relatively small, while the economic costs of emitting carbon are huge and quickly becoming colossal. Consider the situation this way: every single person on the planet is being taxed with the health, monetary, and environmental ramifications of carbon pollution and climate change…and the profits are funneling directly into the Oil and Coal Executives Welfare Fund.

Tackling climate change is fundamental not only to environmental protection but to national security, global commerce, economic recovery, energy security, public health, agricultural policy, and land-use planning. The choices are change now, or continue like so many lemmings off the edge of this cliff. If our elected leaders fail us now, we must take initiative into our own hands. This is not a call for revolution, but for evolution. We must adopt immediate global change. The time for talk and inaction has long since past.

As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said: “Failure to reach broad agreement in Copenhagen would be morally inexcusable, economically short-sighted, and politically unwise…The fate of future generations, and the hopes and livelihoods of billions today rest, literally, with you.”

Contact your elected officials here: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml