Six Steps to Implementing a Plan

Six Steps to Implementing a Plan

It’s a new year and things are going to be different this year.  We spent a little time reviewing our mistakes of the past.  We are resolved – this year will be different.   We have a rock-solid plan.  New ideas, better ideas, discipline of action and a whole lot more are ready to catapult us to the vanguard of our industry.  The team brainstormed, labored and honed our direction to a finely polished point.  Like Alexander the Great, we’ll gaze out and watch the competition crumble before our well-orchestrated attack.  Sound familiar?

We start the year with the greatest of intentions.  Profit planning, sales territory alignment, pricing strategy, targeting and in many instances – a shiny new strategic plan.  That’s January.  Then what happens?  Well, according to Execution: The discipline of getting things done by Larry Bossidy former CEO of Honeywell and business advisor Ram Charan, the typical executive team spends less than four hours making sure the plan works.  Somehow they let planning replace execution in their consciousness. 
This isn’t going to be a lengthy treatise topping the joys of cooking up a plan.  If you don’t believe in planning, you’re probably beyond saving.  Instead, join me as we spend some time talking about how to turn that plan into results – the execution stuff.
To make this discussion real, we’ll come back to one very commonly discussed plan.  
Distributors struggle to maximize their gross margin.  Dozens of trade publication articles, consultative commentaries and presentations exist on the power of adding just one percent more gross margin.  Hundreds of plans for margin improvement can be found in the distribution community.  So, not only is this a great case study – it is real to a great many readers.  We will call this a pricing plan.
Remember this article is not about planning.  It’s about make the plan work.  Six steps to success?  Well there are other factors, but these six ideas will stack the deck in your favor. 
Step 1 – Somebody has to be responsible
If no one has the responsibility and corresponding authority to make the plan come to life, it’s damned from day one.  The adage two heads are better than one doesn’t apply here - committees are even worse.  One specific person must be responsible for seeing the plan through. 
This doesn’t mean one person has to do all of the work – most of the time this is impossible. But a single individual must be held accountable for pushing the plan forward.  Additionally, the power, judgment and authority to make the plan work need to abide with this person.  Judgment is critical - if this individual lacks the acumen to tweak the plan in accordance with changing business landscape, disaster could result.
With pricing plans, we need a single person at the helm.  They must understand selling dynamics, pricing situations and customer needs and possess the judgment factor we spoke of in the last paragraph.  The prestige and authority to stand up to the sales person pushback are a must have.  This cannot be low-level person.
Companies with ongoing success in this category appoint an executive level Pricing Czar to assume responsibility for driving the plan.  Serving as the ultimate authority in questions regarding margin and price, this person carries the full authority of the leadership team to solve disputes and handle pushback. His/her ruling is final.   
Step 2 – Develop metrics throughout the plan
It’s a long road from here to Nirvana – without measures the chances of successful completion drop off substantially.  Mid-course measures become the catalyst for revisiting the plan.  And, based on Bossidy and Charan’s observation – executives spend way too little time revisiting the plan during the year. 
Without a measure, forward progress becomes objective – a matter of conjecture – an opinion.  Opinions sway on mood, recent events and convincing arguments.  Setting milestones– holds everyone to the straight and narrow.
In a pricing plan the most obvious indicator is gross margin.  External forces like fluctuations in season, the economy and trends in commodity prices (copper, steel, oil, etc.) push us to look for additional measures - metrics lying just below the surface.  Information such as pricing exceptions, salesperson compliance to “system pricing” and margin shifts in product lines have proven to be more valuable in tracking progress.
Quite frankly, these are time consuming and difficult for the average company to sort out.  In the world of pricing process, a few thought leaders have emerged.  David Bauders and his Strategic Pricing Associates have built complex software algorithms to automate the metrics with a number of reports which inform the manager on the speed and direction of change.   Truly successful companies insist on this type of regular feedback.
Step 3 – If issues develop, understand the root causes and make adjustments
It’s not enough to know the plan isn’t working.  We’ve got to get to the root cause of the issues.  This can be derived by asking – Why, how, what?  Let’s face it every plan comes with unexpected issues.  Unanticipated conditions are part of the business environment – markets change, competitors react, suppliers fail to deliver and new technologies affect the playing field.  Rather than lamenting failure or worse yet sticking with a bad plan, we must search for the root causes of the issues.  Making wise adjustments to the plan is crucial to long term success.
Ask questions to better understand the situation– things like:

• Why are we falling behind our milestones?
• What has changed since we laid out our plan?
• What must change to get back on track?
• How can we bring other resources into the equation?

Don’t think generalities – specifics are the name of the game.  Insist on the same from your staff and coworkers.  Drill down to the root causes of the issue via investigation.
Jumping back to the real world and a pricing plan – many companies find they struggle to meet the initial goals of their plan.  On the surface, a person might just assume the competitive nature of “our business” prohibits implementation.  However, deeper drilling may uncover a host of root cause issues.  Here is a short list:

• Perception of competitive pushback
• Supply contracts which limit ability to change prices
• Incorrect system data where the prices are not properly maintained
• Packaged deals tying prices of many items together
• Too many product combinations to manage properly

Interviews with companies who have instituted world class pricing plans indicate a willingness to attack each of these root cause issues systematically.  For instance, Industrial Supply Magazine’s Distributor of the Year, Stellar Industrial Supply conducted a series of ongoing employee meetings to combat the competitive pushback issue.  They addressed the root issue and pushed their plan over the goal line.
Step 4 – Insist on individual compliance with the plan
Are there individuals who refuse to follow the plan?  Many a great plan fails because a few dissenters stonewall the execution.  Whether done in the open or covertly underground, these must be addressed. 
Change is difficult and threatens the experienced more than the novice.  It’s not uncommon for a long-term team member to oppose some aspect of the plan.  Except in the most blatant of cases this manifests itself with half-hearted or delayed activities.  For instance, they may sheepishly try the plan once and announce failure.  This is incredibly frustrating and damaging to morale – particularly in selling situations.
In research for a new book The Target Driven Sales Process, we discovered a number of businesses who could not determine whether product introductions failed because of product design flaws or due to poorly executed product launches.  A good many of these managers noted successful salespeople who were conspicuously lacking in their ability to launch any product that falls outside the “mainstream” offering.  
In the world of planning for price improvement – measuring individual compliance appears to be vital for success.  Again referring to the work of David Bauders’ Strategic Pricing Associates; we notice easily accessible compliance reports are a tool for building results.
The Pricing Czar is provided with a report measuring compliance to the pricing strategy by division, sales group, territorial branch, product line and sales person.  The report indicates not only those not expanding the pricing process but delivers “what if” numbers - showing potential assuming various levels of compliance. 
Step 5 – Instruct, educate and coach throughout the plan
Catastrophe awaits those who ignore the human element.  Our plan – no matter how basic – must contain a mechanism for instruction of those involved in execution.  As we contemplate the education piece - let’s remember; human learning requires repetition.  There is a good reason for our repeated expose to the same TV ad or Radio jingle – Madison Avenue has this stuff down to a science.
Launch your plan with an instructional session and repeat that session at points along the way.  Provide metric related updates for the group.  And, for those who lag behind – provide personalized coaching.  Remember – good coaches motivate each person according to that person’s personality.  Some people need encouragement; others a pep talk and finally the laggards described in step 4 may need a shot of something stronger.
Switching back to our pricing plans – we find top-flight companies have well developed educational plans in place.  The very best actually launch the instruction well ahead of any other piece of their plan. 
Interestingly enough, as one explores the pricing system developed by Strategic Pricing Associates, they find a wealth of training information designed to anticipate the issues arising as a company goes through the plan.  Topics like understanding value, the buying habits of various organizations, pricing sensitivity and competitive pressures are rolled out ahead of the very first systemic change. 
This brings us to our final point in developing a plan.
Step 6 – Look to others for implementation tips
No, this isn’t a couched come-on for consulting companies.  Implementation tips flow from a number of places – basically anyone who has been down a similar road.  Folks like benchmarking partners, distributor trade associations, and business networks.  And yes… consultants sometimes fill this role.
Understanding the pot holes on the road to executing your plan eliminates a great deal of frustration and save countless hours spent reinventing the wheel.
Finally a conclusion… 
Whether we are just launching out with a new plan or mid-way through a rough and rocky implementation, following these six steps will maximize our success.  Finally, remember even the best of plans must be tweaked along the way – think implementation, adaptation, implementation.

Revised mandate for the Task Force on the Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution

ECE/EB.AIR/106/Add.1
Decision 2010/1 Revised mandate for the Task Force on the Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution
The Executive Body,
Noting with appreciation the effectiveness of the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution in documenting the growing scientific evidence of hemispheric transport of air pollution, and its impacts on health, ecosystems, and climate;
Further noting with appreciation the excellent work produced by the Ad Hoc Expert Group on Black Carbon, as well as ongoing work by the Arctic Council, the United Nations Environment Programme and others, on the growing evidence of potential impacts of air pollutants on the regional climate of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) area, especially the Arctic and high altitude environments;
Noting that the work of the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution should be conducted in collaboration with experts from other subsidiary bodies under the Convention, including the Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling, the Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections and the Task Force on Measurement and Modelling, as well as the programmes and centres of work of the Working Group on Effects;
Decides to revise the mandate of the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution as set out in the Annex to this decision.
Annex Revised mandate for the Task Force on the Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution
1. The Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution, under the leadership of the European Union and the United States of America, will examine the transport of air pollution across the northern hemisphere and its regional impacts, considering both air quality impacts and those on climate.
2. The lead Parties will assume principal responsibility for coordinating the work of the Task Force, for organizing its meetings, for designating its chair(s), for communications with participating experts, and for other organizational arrangements in accordance with the workplan.
3. The Task Force will carry out the tasks specified for it in the workplan adopted annually by the Executive Body, and will report thereon to the Steering Body to the Cooperative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe (EMEP).
4. The Task Force will be composed of experts from the Parties to the Convention. Each Party will nominate a focal point to the secretariat. Meetings of the Task Force will be open to designated representatives of intergovernmental or accredited non-governmental organizations. The chair(s) are encouraged to invite individuals with expertise relevant to the work of the Task Force and experts from non-Convention countries in the northern hemisphere.
5. Appropriate technical documents for a meeting of the Task Force will be distributed by the secretariat to the focal point nominated by each Party to the Convention at least 30 days in advance of the meeting. Where this has not occurred, the report of the meeting will indicate that the relevant documents were not provided in sufficient time for consideration, unless the Task Force decides otherwise by consensus.
3
ECE/EB.AIR/106/Add.1
6. At the end of each meeting, the Task Force will approve those parts of its report that constitute the key elements of its deliberations relating to the tasks assigned to it by the Executive Body. The report will be distributed by the secretariat to the focal points nominated by the Parties to the Convention and to the observers and experts who were present at the meeting.
7. All reports prepared by the Task Force for the Executive Body and other groups under the Convention will reflect the full range of views expressed during its meetings.
8. The functions of the Task Force will be to:
(a) Plan and conduct the technical work necessary to develop a fuller understanding of the hemispheric transport of air pollution across the northern hemisphere and the effects/impacts of potential mitigation options for consideration in the reviews of protocols to the Convention;
(b) Identify areas for coordination, as well as key issues for fostering complementary work and collaboration on the issue of particulate matter and its components, including black carbon and tropospheric ozone and its precursors by Parties under the Convention and by external bodies (including the Arctic Council/Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC));
(c) Cooperate closely with appropriate technical bodies under the Convention (e.g., the Expert Group on Techno-Economic Issues and the Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling) to estimate the extent to which these emissions and their impacts can be reduced, and regional climate co-benefits can be increased, by implementation of existing legislation and by implementation of specific control measures;
(d) Assess the impacts of emission-reduction opportunities in the UNECE region, as identified above, on regional and intercontinental transport of air pollution and their associated air quality, health, ecosystem and near-term climate effects; and begin to examine the impacts of complementary measures that might be taken in other regions where mitigation may prove more cost-effective;
(e) Identify the scientific and technical requirements (such as methods for emissions quantification, ambient monitoring and estimating global warming potential), as well as non-technical measures, needed for implementing options to reduce black carbon and ozone and their impacts in the region over time. This work should be done in collaboration with experts from subsidiary bodies under the Convention, including the Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling, the Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections and the Task Force on Measurement and Modelling, as well as the programmes and centres of the Working Group on Effects;
(f) Develop a multi-year plan for carrying out further analyses on the tasks referred to in paragraphs (a) through (e), and report back to the EMEP Steering Body and Executive Body in 2011 for consideration in the 2012 workplan;
(g) Carry out such other tasks related to the above work as the Executive Body may assign to it in the annual workplan.
4

What are short-lived climate pollutants?

Short-Lived Climate Pollutants

What are short-lived climate pollutants?

Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) are agents that have relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere - a few days to a few decades - and a warming influence on climate. The main short lived climate pollutants are black carbon, methane and tropospheric ozone, which are the most important contributors to the human enhancement of the global greenhouse effect after CO₂. These short-lived climate pollutants are also dangerous air pollutants, with various detrimental impacts on human health, agriculture and ecosystems. Other short-lived climate pollutants include some hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). While HFCs are currently present in small quantity in the atmosphere their contribution to climate forcing is projected to climb to as much as 19% of global CO₂ emissions by 2050.

Why do we need to act?

Short-lived climate pollutants are impacting public health, food, water and economic security of large populations, both directly through their impacts on human health, agriculture and ecosystems, and indirectly through their effects on climate. Short-lived climate pollutants have become a major development issue that calls for quick and significant worldwide action.

Slowing down near-term global warming

Many regions are already suffering from accelerated climate change. Over the world glaciers are melting, weather patterns changing and sea levels rising while the threat of overshooting the 2ºC "safety" target is looming. Due to their short lifetimes, compared to CO2 which remains in the atmosphere for approximately a century, actions to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants will quickly lower their atmospheric concentrations, yielding a relatively rapid climate response. Fast action to reduce short-lived climate pollutants, especially methane and black carbon, has the potential to slow down the warming expected by 2050 by as much as 0.5 Celsius degrees. However, if mitigating short lived climate pollutants will help to reduce the rate of global warming and avoid exceeding the 2°C target over the near term, long-term climate protection requires deep and rapid cut in carbon dioxide emissions.

Figure 1: Temperature benefits from black carbon and methane mitigation.

Potential temperature benefits from the 16 measures identified in the Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone.The uncertainty of the temperature projections in 2070 is shown by the lines on the right hand side.
Source: UNEP/WMO, (2011), Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone, Summary for decision makers, pp12.
Available here

Avoiding millions of premature deaths

Each year, 3.1 million people die prematurely from indoor and outdoor air pollution. Short-lived climate pollutants are largely to blame. Fast actions on short lived climate pollutants, such as the widespread adoption of advanced cookstoves and clean fuels, have the potential to prevent over 2 million of premature deaths each year.

Increasing crop yields

Feeding a growing world population has become one of the major issues of our century and we cannot afford to lose millions of tons of crops each year because of air pollution. Present day global relative yield losses due to tropospheric ozone exposure range between 7-12 percent for wheat, 6-16 percent for soybean, 3-4 percent for rice, and 3-5 percent for maize . In addition, black carbon influences the formation of clouds that have a negative effect on photosynthesis that impacts plants growth. Rapidly reducing short-lived climate pollutants, for instance through the collection of landfill gas or the recovery of methane from coal mines, has the potential to avoid the annual loss of more than 30 million tons of crops.

Additional gains from mitigating hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)

HFCs are man-made fluorinated greenhouse gases used as replacements for ozone-depleting substances (ODS). These chemicals have no known natural sources, and they are being used in the same applications where ODS have been used: air conditioning, refrigeration, fire suppression, solvents, foam blowing agents, and aerosols. Most importantly, HFCs are rapidly increasing in the atmosphere. Though HFCs currently represent a small fraction of total greenhouse gases, their warming impact is particularly strong, and their emissions are projected to increase nearly twentyfold in the next three decades if their growth is not reduced. The most commonly used HFC is HFC-134a, which is 1,430 times more damaging to the climate system then carbon dioxide.
Emissions of HFCs are growing fast. As a result, HFCs emissions could offset much of the climate benefits from the Montreal Protocol. They are projected to rise to about 3.5 to 8.8 Gt CO2eq in 2050, comparable to total current annual emissions from transport, estimated at around 6-7 Gt annually. There are options available that could avoid or replace high-GWP HFCs in many sectors and also ways to reduce emissions

Figure 2: Additional gains from mitigating hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)

Source: UNEP, 2011, "HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer", pp16

Asia Water Week 2013

Organized by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Asian Water Week 2013 will address ongoing efforts to reform water management policies and strengthen priority programmes. Focusing on the theme "Water Security for All" the meeting will cover issues including climate change, the water-food-energy nexus, disaster management, civil society, financing, private sector involvement and governance.  

dates: 13-15 March 2013   location: Manila (Manila), Philippines   additional: ADB headquarters   contact: Ian Makin   phone: +632 632 5803   www: http://www.adb.org/news/events/asia-water-week-2013  

related categories:Adaptation | Agriculture & Food Security | Asia | Disasters & Humanitarian Relief | Economics, Trade & Investment | Energy | Freshwater | International Financial Institution | Meeting | Regional Development Bank

Background

ADB is organizing Asia Water Week 2013 to deepen and expand analytical work in Asia’s water sector to advance inclusive policy reforms and strengthen support to priority programs and projects. The analytical work will provide the basis for sustained public investment and increased mobilization of private sector investment and expertise.
Asia Water Week 2013 has for its overarching theme "Securing Water for All". The conference will cover crosscutting topics such as climate change, water-food-energy nexus, and disaster management as well as sub-sector specific discussions, including water supply and sanitation, water resources and environment, and agriculture and irrigation. The ADB Water Prize 2013 award will also be presented.

Objectives

The conference will enable participants, including clients, ADB staff and invited specialists, to exchange knowledge on water sector issues, technologies, and to identify clients’ emerging priorities. New water sector initiatives will be announced, water sector professionals and leaders recognized, and innovations in the water sector encouraged.

Thematic areas

Aspects of water security will be examined through three thematic areas:

Basin Water Management - involvesriver basin institutions, capacity development, benchmarking, and stakeholder participation processes. Asia Water Week will provide a forum for exchanging knowledge and experiences in improving the planning, conservation, development, and management of water, forest, land, and aquatic resources in the context of increasing water security in river basins.

Urban Water Services - includeswater supply and sanitation, wastewater management, and flood risk management. Asia Water Week will focus on the key challenges facing the sector in the provision of water supply, sanitation and wastewater management services. Urban flood management, a perennial and growing problem, also needs to be addressed.

Rural Water Services - encompass irrigation, drainage, flood management, and water supply and sanitation services to rural communities. Asia Water Week will discuss ways to revitalize irrigation services to support market-oriented and diversified farms and to increase access to water supply and improved sanitation services for healthy and vibrant rural communities.

Burning Fuel Particles Do More Damage to Climate Than Thought, Study Says

The tiny black particles released into the atmosphere by burning fuels are far more powerful agents of global warming than had previously been estimated, some of the world’s most prominent atmospheric scientists reported in a study issued on Tuesday.

These particles, which are known as black carbon and are the major component of soot, are the second most important contributor to global warming, behind only carbon dioxide, wrote the 31 authors of the study, published online by The Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.

The new estimate of black carbon’s heat-trapping power is about double the one made in the last major report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2007. And the researchers said that if indirect warming effects of the particles are factored in, they may be trapping heat at almost three times the previously estimated rate.

The new calculation adds urgency to efforts to curb the production of black carbon, which is released primarily by diesel engines in the industrialized world and by primitive cook stoves and kerosene lamps in poorer nations. Natural phenomena like forest fires also produce it.

Black carbon is already a central target of one of the few international climate initiatives championed by the United States, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, which has been supported by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The program seeks to reduce the production of black carbon to combat both climate change and air pollution and respiratory disease on the ground.

Although some scientists have long believed that black carbon is a major force in climate change, the vast majority of previous mathematical models had predicted that the particles had only a modest impact. That view should now change, said Mark Z. Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University and one of the study’s authors, calling the old models “overly simplistic.” He said that many of his co-authors had previously hewed to the lower estimates.

Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a professor of climate science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego who has long campaigned to control black carbon, described the study as highly authoritative. “The fact that it’s written by a very large group of modelers gives it enormous credibility,” he said. “It was lonely before. I’m now glad to be right in the middle.”

The group reached its conclusions after factoring in a new series of measurements about the amount of black carbon accumulating in the atmosphere and how much heat from the sun it absorbs. It also took into account some of the complicated secondary climate effects that occur when black carbon interacts with chemical, clouds and the earth’s surface.

For example, when black carbon settles on glaciers or Arctic ice, it renders them darker, and they absorb more heat and melt at a faster rate.

Still, some scientists said the paper mostly underlined how much remained to be studied about the warming effects of these particles.

“The paper makes a good case that our models are underestimating the effect, but what it does for me is to underscore all the various uncertainties,” said Christopher D. Cappa, an associate professor of environmental science at the University of California at Davis.

In a study published last year in the journal Science, Dr. Cappa and his colleagues studied atmospheric samples containing black carbon and concluded that they absorbed less sunlight than might be predicted from laboratory experiments, in part because black carbon is coated with atmospheric chemicals.

Carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, remains in the atmosphere for decades and is distributed nearly uniformly across the earth’s atmosphere. By contrast, black carbon generally only persists in the air for a week to 10 days, so its presence across the globe is far more variable. And its effect varies greatly depending on whether it is above or below the clouds, Dr. Cappa said.

But the short-lived nature of black carbon also makes it a ready target for efforts to rein in climate change. Any reduction in carbon dioxide production today will take years to have a tangible effect on global warming because so much of the gas is already in the atmosphere. But preventing the release of a ton of black carbon, particularly in just the right place — say, upwind from a glacier — could have a strong and nearly immediate impact.

Mrs. Clinton has also been a strong supporter of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, a public-private partnership whose goal is to replace 100 million primitive stoves in poor countries with modern versions that produce less black carbon.

On another front, a greater emphasis on black carbon as a warming agent could affect elements of climate policies in many countries. Most notably, to meet national fuel efficiency standards, many carmakers are making more diesel cars because they get better gas mileage and produce less carbon dioxide.

But diesel engines also produce relatively heavy emissions of black carbon, Dr. Jacobson said, which partly cancels out the benefit.

Tackling the atmospheric “brown cloud”

 The atmospheric brown cloud is a layer of air pollution that recurrently covers, for example, parts of South Asia, namely the northern Indian Ocean, India and Pakistan


Viewed from satellite photos, the cloud appears as a giant brown stain hanging in the air
over much of South Asia and the Indian Ocean every year between January and March.
Atmospheric brown clouds are created by a range of airborne particles and pollutants from
combustion (e.g. wood fires, cars and factories), biomass burning and industrial processes.
At the regional level, the joint UNEP and Asian Institute of Technology project
– Atmospheric Brown Cloud (ABC) – assesses the impact of these clouds on human health,
hydrology and agriculture. The project has increased understanding of the impacts of air
pollution on climate in South Asia. As a component of ABC, Project Surya in India aims to
mitigate the regional and global impacts of anthropogenic climate change by immediately
and demonstrably reducing atmospheric concentrations of black carbon, methane and
ozone through deploying inexpensive solar and other energy efficient cookers in rural India.
Producing cleaner bricks for cleaner air
It has been shown that better fuel use in producing bricks for building construction can
significantly reduce air pollution while generating important savings in energy and
greenhouse gas emissions. At present, most global brick production takes place in Asia
(China produces approximately 50% of the world total, followed by India with 10%). The
structure, size and number of production facilities, as well as the type of fuel used, vary from
region to region and even among and within countries. For instance, there are about
100 000 large operating units in India; in Mexico, there are around 20 000 artisanal, nonmechanised
brick kilns, mostly small and medium-sized; in Bangladesh, most of the
6 000 units are old, large-scale kilns with fixed chimneys. Several local and regional projects
supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) are focusing on improving the energy efficiency of brick production.

What can be done to reduce short-lived climate pollutants?

What can be done to reduce short-lived climate pollutants?
According to UNEP (2011b) there are a number of measures for reducing black carbon
and ozone precursors that could begin to protect climate, public health, water, food
security, and ecosystems immediately. They include recovering methane from extraction
of coal, oil, gas, as well as from transport; capturing methane in waste management; using
clean-burning stoves for residential cooking and diesel particulate filters for vehicles; and
banning open burning of agricultural waste. Full implementation of these measures is
achievable with existing technology but would require significant strategic investment and
institutional arrangements.
About 50% of methane and black carbon emission reductions can be achieved through
measures that result in net cost savings (as a global average) over their lifetime. These
savings come about from initial investments being offset, for example, by reduced fuel use
or the use of recovered methane. A further one-third of the total methane emission
reduction could be addressed at relatively moderate costs.
In developing countries, efforts to reduce SLCPs can build on existing institutions,
policies and regulatory frameworks for air quality management, and, where applicable,
climate change. For many developing countries, these efforts can be connected to
development goals and mainstreamed into development policies and sustainable
development strategies. Action to replace domestic cook stoves with new efficient ones, for
instance, offers a good example of a policy decision with visible development benefits.
Countries can take action now to rapidly implement control measures to address the
most obvious SLCP sources knowing that multiple benefits will result. Efforts to combat SLCPs
are not new. Projects and programmes at the global, regional and local levels have been
supported by OECD member countries and international organisations for decades. Some of
these are described briefly below. The lessons learned from initiatives such as these can help
countries to scale up efforts and develop national SLCP action plans in priority areas.
Improved cooking to reduce black carbon. The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves is
a public-private initiative to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and combat
climate change by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household
cooking solutions. It comprises a range of organisations – from cottage industries to largescale
companies – that are supplying clean, efficient, affordable, and user-desired stoves
and fuels on a large scale,

Regional impacts of short-lived climate pollutants

Regional impacts of short-lived climate pollutants
Many regions of the world suffer from accelerated climate change. These include the
Arctic region, South Asia, parts of Africa and various mountainous or densely populated
areas of the world. In South Asia, for example, short-lived climate pollutants are causing
threats to regional climatic systems, such as monsoons, and hydrological balances, with
implications for food security as well as for water supply. In the Arctic, emissions of SLCPs
– primarily black carbons – transported through the atmosphere at high latitudes are
deposited on snow and ice, where they have a deleterious effect on the surface albedo in the
form of heating and increased melting. Emissions of black carbon in the Arctic region are
expected to increase as the northeast and northwest passages are more frequently opened
to shipping; this, in turn, will further accelerate the heating and melting phenomena.

Environmental impacts of short-lived climate pollutants

Environmental impacts of short-lived climate pollutants
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to increase, reaching a record level of
32 billion tonnes in 2010. We are rapidly approaching concentration levels of long-lived
greenhouse gases that are projected to lead to an annual and global average temperature
increase of more than two degrees Celsius (2 oC) by the year 2100. The best available
scientific knowledge tells us that if we are to have a chance of limiting global climate
warming to 2 oC, we need to decrease global CO2 emissions significantly by 2015, cutting
them by at least 50% by 2050.
Focusing on short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs, ) is an effective way of
mitigating climate change impact in the short term – without losing sight of the
fundamental importance of reducing emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases. SLCPs are,
after CO2, the most important contributors to human (anthropogenic) enhancement of the
global greenhouse effect. The latest scientific evidence confirms that reducing SLCPs could
have a substantial effect on climate change within 10 to 30 years, which is indispensable if
we are to limit global warming to 2 °C by 2100 (UNEP, 2011a).
Short-lived climate pollutants are also dangerous air pollutants, with various detrimental
impacts on human health, agriculture and ecosystems . According to a recent
study carried out by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2011a), broad
implementation of 16 existing measures to reduce emissions of SLCPs through 2030 could
have the following benefits:
● 4 million premature deaths resulting from outdoor air pollution and a further 1.6 million
deaths resulting from indoor air pollution could be avoided each year.
● Annual harvest losses of 52 million tonnes per year of rice, maize, soya beans and wheat
could be avoided thanks to lower concentrations of ground-level ozone.
● Global warming could be reduced by up to 0.5 °C by 2050; by 2040, warming in the Arctic
could be reduced by 0.7 °C.
In many developing countries, the need to abate SLCP emissions is vital, especially for
health and food production. At the same time, developing countries have the least
financial resources to carry out abatement actions. This is why it is particularly important
to find actions that can actually save money. In view of the additional savings that can be
made in the areas of public health and food production, this offers a strong argument for
SLCP abatement measures to be integrated into a country’s development and poverty
reduction strategy.

What are SLCPs?

What are SLCPs?
SLCPs, or short-lived climate pollutants, are chemicals that remain in the atmosphere
for only a few days or a few decades at the most. They include black carbon, methane and
tropospheric ozone.
Black carbon, present in the atmosphere as particles, has a warming impact on climate
460-1 500 times stronger than CO2. With a lifetime that varies from a few days to a few
weeks, black carbon is a major component of soot and is produced by incomplete
combustion of fossil fuel and biomass. When deposited on ice and snow, black carbon
causes both atmospheric warming and an increase in melting rate. It also influences cloud
formation and affects regional atmospheric circulation and rainfall patterns. In addition,
black carbon is a primary component of particulate matter in air pollution, the major
environmental cause of premature human death globally.
Methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas, is over 20 times more potent than CO2 in terms of its
climate-warming impact. With an atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years, it is produced
through natural processes (e.g. the decomposition of plant and animal waste) and is also
emitted from man-made sources, including coal mines, natural gas and oil systems, and
landfills. Methane directly influences the climate system and also has indirect impacts
on human health and ecosystems, in particular through its role as a precursor of
tropospheric ozone.
Tropospheric or ground-level ozone (O3) is present in the lowest portion of the
atmosphere (up to 10-15 kilometres above the ground) and is responsible for a large part of
the human enhancement of the global greenhouse effect. With a lifetime of a few days to
a few weeks, it is not directly emitted, but rather is produced through sunlight-driven
oxidation of other agents, called ozone precursors: primarily methane (CH4), but also
carbon monoxide (CO), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX). Tropospheric ozone is a harmful pollutant that has detrimental impacts on
human health and plants, causing important reductions in crop yields.

Tackling air pollutants for long-lasting climate benefits by Lena Ek Minister for the Environment, Sweden

Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) are chemicals that remain in the atmosphere
for only a few days or a few decades at the most. They include black carbon particles
(or soot, emitted from wood fires, for example); methane (from oil and gas production
and municipal waste); and tropospheric ozone (from motor vehicles). In addition to
being powerful greenhouse gases, these are dangerous air pollutants, with various
detrimental impacts on human health, agriculture and ecosystems. Yet, there is
little public awareness of the threat these chemicals pose. Actions to reduce SLCPs
might be the only way to slow down global and regional warming in the short term
(10-30 years) and, at the same time, provide immediate air quality benefits. In this
chapter, the author provides examples of initiatives underway to tackle these
pollutants and, at the same time, bring benefits to developing countries. Many of
these measures are low-cost, with initial investments offset by subsequent cost
savings, for example, from reduced fuel use or harnessing of recovered methane.
Global action is needed to raise awareness, enable and encourage national and
regional initiatives, and support the widespread implementation of SLCP control
measures. In March 2012, Sweden, Bangladesh, Canada, Ghana, Mexico and the
United States launched the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, a global partnership to
help developing countries scale up their efforts to combat SLCPs.

Environmental impacts of short-lived climate pollutants
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to increase, reaching a record level of
32 billion tonnes in 2010. We are rapidly approaching concentration levels of long-lived
greenhouse gases that are projected to lead to an annual and global average temperature
increase of more than two degrees Celsius (2 oC) by the year 2100. The best available
scientific knowledge tells us that if we are to have a chance of limiting global climate
warming to 2 oC, we need to decrease global CO2 emissions significantly by 2015, cutting
them by at least 50% by 2050.
Focusing on short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs, Box 6.1) is an effective way of
mitigating climate change impact in the short term – without losing sight of the
fundamental importance of reducing emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases. SLCPs are,
after CO2, the most important contributors to human (anthropogenic) enhancement of the
global greenhouse effect. The latest scientific evidence confirms that reducing SLCPs could
have a substantial effect on climate change within 10 to 30 years, which is indispensable if
we are to limit global warming to 2 °C by 2100 (UNEP, 2011a).
Short-lived climate pollutants are also dangerous air pollutants, with various detrimental
impacts on human health, agriculture and ecosystems (Box 6.2). According to a recent
study carried out by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2011a), broad
implementation of 16 existing measures to reduce emissions of SLCPs through 2030 could
have the following benefits:
● 4 million premature deaths resulting from outdoor air pollution and a further 1.6 million
deaths resulting from indoor air pollution could be avoided each year.
● Annual harvest losses of 52 million tonnes per year of rice, maize, soya beans and wheat
could be avoided thanks to lower concentrations of ground-level ozone.
● Global warming could be reduced by up to 0.5 °C by 2050; by 2040, warming in the Arctic
could be reduced by 0.7 °C.
In many developing countries, the need to abate SLCP emissions is vital, especially for
health and food production. At the same time, developing countries have the least
financial resources to carry out abatement actions. This is why it is particularly important
to find actions that can actually save money. In view of the additional savings that can be
made in the areas of public health and food production, this offers a strong argument for
SLCP abatement measures to be integrated into a country’s development and poverty
reduction strategy

Executive Committee on Climate Change constituted

Executive Committee on Climate Change constituted

The Prime Minister has decided to constitute an Executive Committee on Climate Change to assist the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change. The Executive Committee on Climate Change would focus on the following tasks:
1. Assist the PM’s Council on Climate Change in evolving a co-ordinated response to issues relating to climate change at the National level.
2. Regularly monitor the implementation of the eight national missions and other initiatives on Climate Change.
3. Advise the PM’s Council on Climate Change on modifications in the objectives, strategies and structure of the missions, as may be necessary.
4. Co-ordinate with various agencies on issues relating to climate change.
The Chairman of the Executive Committee on Climate Change will be the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests will be the Member-Convenor. Other members of the Committee include Cabinet Secretary, Finance Secretary, Secretary, Planning  Commision, Secretary Ministry of Power, Secretary Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, Secretary Ministry of Urban Development, SECREATRY Water Resources, Secretary Department of Science & Technology, Secretary Department of Agriculture & co-operation, Secretary Department of Agricultural Research & Education, Secretary Department of Earth Sciences, Secretary Ministry of Coal, Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Secretary Department of Economic Affairs.
The Chairman of Executive Committee on Climate Change may invite any other officer/Expert to the meetings as may be necessary. The PM’s Council on Climate Change and the Executive Committee on Climate Change would be serviced by Ministry of Environment and Forests.
The Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change was constituted in 2007, in order to co-ordinate National Action for Assessment, Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change. The National Action Plan of Climate Change (NAPCC) was released by the Prime Minister in June 2008. Under the NAPCC, with the approval of PM’s Council on Climate Change, eight national missions are being implemented.
 

Doha climate talks: why cutting CO2 is more important than stopping methane

Reducing methane and other 'short-lived climate pollutants' is a good idea, but CO2 is likely to decide humanity's fate

• 

Soot pours out of a factory in Romania. Photograph: Andrew Holbrooke/Corbis

Global warming is caused by a whole host of gases and particles. In addition to the chief villain – carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use – two of the most important are methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are generated in large quantities by agriculture and fossil fuel extraction, among other sources. Then there are all the refrigerant gases used in the world's air conditioners, fridges and freezers; the soot generated by cars, industrial plants and cooking fires the world over; and even the vapour trails left by in the sky by aircraft.
With so many warming agents at work, companies and governments are often faced with complex and even controversial decisions about which ones to prioritise. The debate stems from the fact that the various gases and particles operate at very different timescales. Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and some refrigerants stay in the air for centuries or even millennia, locking in warming for all the time they are there. The others – collectively know as short-lived climate pollutants or SLCPs – create a burst of warming that is powerful but brief. Soot's impact is gone within a few weeks. Methane stays in the air for an average of around 12 years (confusingly, it then becomes CO2) and hydroflurocarbons, used in refrigeration and insulation foam, typically last around 15 years.
The difference between carbon dioxide and SLCPs is a bit like the difference between burning coal and paper on a fire. Both generate plenty of heat but whereas the coal burns steadily for a long time and accumulates if you keep adding more, the paper gives an intense burst of warmth but one that quickly disappears once you stop adding it.
The fairly arbitrary convention when comparing the various greenhouse gases is to consider their total warming effect (or 'global warming potential') during the century after they were emitted. By this measure, each tonne of methane, say, creates around 25 times more warming than each tonne of carbon dioxide. But if you shift the timeframe, things look very different. Over twenty years, methane is 72 times more powerful than CO2; over 500 years, it's less than eight times as powerful.
Over the past few years, various organisation and policymakers have argued that the world should be putting much more effort into reducing SLCPs. UNEP has led this agenda with its Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. Hillary Clinton has been outspoken about the issue (as has Bill) and bodies such as the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development have been pushing for some short-lived climate agents to be regulated via the Montreal Protocol.
On one level, this all makes perfect sense. Not only is it relatively inexpensive to phase out many of the SLCPs, but doing so can bring some positive side effects. This is especially true in the case of soot, which causes literally millions of premature deaths from lung disease each year – mostly in the developing world, where many people still cook on open fires and inefficient stoves that kick out large amounts of smoke. Another benefit is that when you reduce SLCPs, you feel the cooling effect very quickly.
For all these reasons, everyone agrees that phasing out SLCPs is a good idea. But some climate scientists – including Myles Allen of Oxford University – are concerned that in the rush to do more about the short-live gases, we may be taking our eye off the elephant in the room: carbon dioxide. At an event in Doha on Friday, Allen argued that long-lived and short-lived warming agents pose fundamentally different types of threats, and that to try and compare them in a simple way is not just misleading but may also cause companies and countries to follow counterproductive climate strategies.
The core of Allen's argument is this: unless we also aggressively reduce CO2 emissions – which at the global level we're comprehensively failing to do – rapid action to reduce SLCPs "can only delay, but not prevent" a dangerously high peak in global temperatures. Even if we do cut CO2 emissions rapidly, then it makes only a small difference to the peak temperature whether we cut SLCPs now or in future decades.
This may sound counterintuitive at first, but it makes sense when you stop to think about it. The global temperature is unlikely to peak until at least the second half of this century and potentially much later, depending on how quickly we cut our CO2 emissions. Whenever the peak comes, however, the CO2 we emit today will help ratchet it up, since the gas accumulates in the air. By contrast any SLCPs released today will be long gone by the time we reach the peak, so as long as we cut them at some point in the interim, the level of the peak won't be affected.
Once you realise this, it becomes obvious that it's almost meaningless to say that avoiding a tonne of methane emissions today is worth 25 times as much as avoiding a tonne of CO2. In fact, it may be worse than meaningless, because it could encourage a company or country to prioritise cutting methane or soot or hydroflurocarbons over CO2, potentially at the expensive of the world's peak temperature. Since it's the peak temperature that determines whether we'll cross a global tipping point and find ourselves facing runaway climate change, this is a really important point to take on board.
Thinking about the timing of different emissions in this way also suggests the way we usually calculate carbon footprints may be misleading. Beef and lamb, for example, would look far less bad through the lens of peak temperature because as much as half of their footprint comes from methane belched out by the cows and sheep. That methane scores highly in terms of global warming potential, but it may not make a jot of difference to peak temperature unless we get the CO2 under control as well. (For the record, beef would still be a carbon-intensive food, even without the methane.)
None of this is to say that the fast-acting gases don't matter. They do. For one thing, once we are slashing CO2 emissions, then reducing the SLCPs can shave a bit off the temperature peak, and that could be important. Moreover, slashing SLCPs helps reduce the warming now – and the world surely has a moral obligation to do that on behalf of people whose livelihoods or health are exposed to global warming. An African farmer experiencing a crippling drought in the 2020s will have much more urgent things to worry about than the future peak temperature, even if the latter is what determines the fate of the human race.
Another reason to care about SLCPs is that the more we learn about reducing them, the easier it will be to get them as low as possible as we approach peak temperature, at which point they can make a significant difference. Finally, it's worth saying that the timing of the temperature peak matters too. If we can delay the peak by slashing SLCPs, that could buy us precious extra time to work out how to get the CO2 back out of the air – or rig up some emergency system of geoengineering, if it comes to that.
For all these reasons we obviously need to be reducing CO2 and the short-lived gases. But it's critical that we don't use action on SLCPs as an excuse to allow CO2 to keep rising (Ms Clinton I'm looking at you) or create metrics which encourage companies and countries to prioritise short-terms benefits over long-term ones.
There is, unfortunately, no substitute for phasing out fossil fuels.

KAKINADA- ANDHRA PRADESH -INDIA METROLOGICAL DATA JAN. 2013

Taxi Drivers are Exposed to 3 Times More PM2.5 Pollution Than Average Person in Chinese Cities (Green Peace)

A study conducted by Greenpeace has revealed that taxi drivers suffer the greatest levels of exposure to PM2.5 air pollution: three times that of the average person, and five times the world standard.



The study, carried out by Greenpeace in partnership with the Beijing University School of Public Health, looked at four individuals: a child, an environmentalist, a taxi driver, and an outdoor enthusiast. 

The four individuals’ daily activity over 24 hours was recorded and their exposure to pollution was contrasted with China’s National Ambient Air Quality Standard. It showed that both the taxi driver and the athlete suffered levels of exposure higher than the national standard.  

More worrying still was the comparison with the WHO’s guideline values on particulate matter: the taxi driver’s exposure to the levels of PM2.5 in Beijing’s air was equivalent to five times the standard set for mean exposure over a 24-hour period, with the athlete exposed to six times the standard.

Within the report, Greenpeace indicated that it estimates atmospheric particulates to account for 3% of cardiovascular deaths in young people worldwide, as well as around 5% of deaths due to bronchitis and lung cancer, and around 1% of deaths due to acute respiratory infection.  

Generally, the longer subjects spent outdoors, the greater the threat posed to their health by PM2.5 pollution; though staying indoors did not eliminate the exposure.

For taxi drivers, who come into more contact with car exhaust fumes, this effect is likely to be greater.  As data cited in the Greenpeace report shows, long term exposure to traffic pollution is an independent risk factor in the onset of coronary heart disease.  

The hazards are even greater for those who take exercise in severely polluted air. An individual’s rate of pulmonary ventilation during periods of intense physical activity is ten to 16 times the rate when at rest; the effect of air pollution on those who exercise outdoors is therefore especially high.

Soil pH

Soil pH is a measurement of the acidity or alkalinity of a soil.  On the pH scale, 7.0 is neutral. Below 7.0 acid, and above 7.0is basic or alkaline.  A pH range of 6.8 to 7.2 is termed near neutral.  Areas of the world with limited rainfall typically have alkaline soils while areas with higher rainfall typically have acid soils.

 Soils with a pH above 7.5 generally have a high calcium carbonate content, known as free lime.  In some mountain soils and older gardens that have been highly irrigated and cultivated for many years the pH may be in the neutral range or slightly acid.

Many gardening books list the preferred pH for common plants (generally 6.0 to 7.2).  For most plants, however, what is preferred and what is tolerated are not related.  Most garden and landscape plants tolerate a pH up to 7.5 to 7.8 with little problem.  The exception is acid-loving plants, like blueberries, azaleas, and rhododendrons that need acid soil.  Blue hydrangeas also require a pH lower than 5.0 to induce the blue flower color.  [Figure 1]

Figure 1. pH Ranges and influence on plant growth potential - 7.0 is neutral. Above 7.0 is alkaline Below 7.0 is acid.

pH and Nutrient Availability

Soil pH is an important chemical property because it affects the availability of nutrients to plants and the activity of soil microorganisms.  The influence of pH on nutrient availability is illustrated in the Figure 2.  Iron chlorosis is common in Colorado due to alkaline soil pH.  Phosphorus will become less available in highly alkaline soils.  Zinc deficiencies are occasionally observed in sensitive field crops, like corn and beans. [Figure 2]

Figure 2.  Availability of nutrients based on soil pH

Managing Alkaline Soils

In Colorado soils with moderate to high alkalinity (pH above 7.5), manage the soil by giving extra attention to increasing the organic matter, using organic mulches, and light frequent irrigation.  Plants are less tolerant of dry soil conditions when the pH is high.

Soils with a pH above 7.3 and/or with free lime cannot be adequately amended for acid-loving plants like blueberries, azaleas, and rhododendrons.

In near-neutral pH soils rich with organic matter and without free-lime, gardeners may find a slight decrease in soil pH over many decades.  This occurs as irrigation leaches out some naturally occurring elements (calcium and magnesium) contributing to the higher pH.  The growth of plants that secrete weak acids into the soil may also contribute to a gradual pH change.

Lowering the pH

Textbooks talk of sulfur applications to lower a soil’s pH.  This is effective in many parts of the country.  However it is not effective in many Colorado soils due to high levels of “free lime” (calcium carbonate) found in the soils. 

To test for free lime, place a heaping tablespoon of crumbled dry soil in a cup.  Moisten it with vinegar.  If the soil-vinegar mix bubbles, the soil has free lime.  On soils with free lime, a gardener will not effectively lower the pH. 

On soils without free lime, the following products may help lower the pH.

• Elemental sulfur is one chemical that can be used to lower soil pH.  The soil type, existing pH, and the desired pH are used to determine the amount of elemental sulfur needed, (see Table 1).  Incorporate sulfur to a depth of six inches.  It may take several months to over a year to react with the soil, lowering the pH.  Test soil pH again 3 to 4 months after initial application.  If the soil pH is not in the desired range, reapply.

Table 1. Pounds of Sulfur Needed to Lower Soil pH 1
Material	pH Change	Pounds per 100 Square Feet 2
Sulfur	7.5 to 6.5 8.0 to 6.5 8.5 to 6.5	1.5 3.5 4.0
Iron sulfate	7.5 to 6.5 8.0 to 6.5 8.5 to 6.5	12.5 29.0 33.2
1 Effective only on soils without free lime, do the vinegar test! 2 Higher rates will be required on fine-textured clayey soils and soils with a pH of 7.3 and above

• Iron sulfate can also be used to acidify soils.  This material reacts much faster than elemental sulfur, usually within three to four weeks following application.  Do not apply more than nine pounds per 100 square feet in a single application.  If higher rates are required, split applications to avoid excessive levels of soluble salts.  (See Table 2)


• Aluminum sulfate will also lower pH, but it is not recommended as a soil acidifying amendment because of the potential for aluminum toxicity to plant roots.


• Acid sphagnum peat incorporated into the soil prior to planting will help provide a favorable rooting environment for the establishment of acid-loving plants in near neutral soils.  Incorporate peat at the rate of one to two cubic feet per plant.  The positive effects of acid peat will last a few years, but unless other measures are used, the pH of the soil will eventually increase.  The pH will be driven up with the high calcium in our irrigation water.  Soil with a pH above 7.3 and/or with free lime cannot be adequately amended for acid-loving plants.


• Fertilizers – Use of ammonium sulfate or urea as nitrogen fertilizer sources will also have a small effect on lowering soil pH in soils without free lime.  However, do not use these fertilizers at rates greater than those required to meet the nitrogen needs of the plants.  For example, ammonium sulfate fertilizer, 21-0-0, at ten pounds per 1000 square feet (maximum rate for crop application) may lower the pH from 7.3 to 7.2.
  
  Fertilizers that contain nitrogen in the nitrate form will have a slight effect to increase the pH.

Raising the pH on Acid Soil

On acid soils, the pH can be raised by adding lime (calcium carbonate). The amount to add depends on the cation exchange capacity (nutrient-holding capacity) of the soil, which is based on the soil’s clay content. Soil higher in clay will have a higher cation exchange capacity and will require more materials to raise the pH.

A laboratory test called buffer index measures the responsiveness of the soil to lime applications. The soil test will give recommendations on application rates based on the buffer index rather than just the pH. Table 3 gives an estimated amount of lime to apply to raise a soil’s pH.

Table 3. Lime Application Rates to Raise Soil pH to Approximately 7.0 for Turf
Existing Soil pH	Lime Application Rate (pounds per 1,000 square feet)
	Sandy	Loamy	Clayey
5.5 to 6.0 5.0 to 5.5 3.4 to 5.0 3.5 to 4.5	20 30 40 50	25 40 55 70	35 50 80 80
Lime application rates shown in this table are for dolomite, ground, and pelletized limestone and assume a soil organic matter level of approximately 2% or less. On soils with 4 to 5% organic matter, increase limestone application rates by 20%. Individual applications to turf should not exceed 50 pounds of limestone per 1,000 square feet. Avoid the use of hydrated or burned lime because it is hazardous to both humans and turf (can seriously burn skin and leaves). If hydrated lime is used, crease application rates in the above table by 50% and apply no more than 10 pounds of hydrated or burned line per 1000 square feet of turf.

Lime is commonly sold as ground agricultural limestone. It varies in how fine it has been ground. The finer the grind, the more rapidly it becomes effective in lowering pH. Calcitic lime mostly contains calcium carbonate (CaC03). Dolomitic lime contains both calcium carbonate and dolomite [MgCa(CO3)2]. On most soils, both are generally satisfactory. However, on sandy soils low in organic matter, dolomitic lime may supplement low magnesium levels.

Steps to Calculating Fertilizer Application Rate

teps to Calculating Fertilizer Application Rate

Example is for a 40 foot by 100 foot lawn area, using a 20-2-2- fertilizer.

Fertilizer Application Rate Table

Because soil test recommendations may not exactly match any fertilizer select a fertilizer that gives comparative amounts of nitrogen, phosphate and potash. In fertilizer application, it is most important to match the nitrogen requirement. The amount of fertilizer to apply that will give the recommended amount of nitrogen can be obtained from Table 1.

Table 1. Amount of fertilizer to apply based on actual nitrogen recommendations
Fertilizer Grade	0.1 pound N per 100 square feet	0.2 pound N per 100 square feet	1 pound N per 1,000 square feet
45-0-0 (urea)	0.2	0.4	2.2
37-3-3	0.3	0.5	2.7
36-6-6	0.3	0.6	2.8
33-0-0	0.3	0.3	3.0
32-4-4. 32-3-10	0.3	0.6	3.1
30-4-4, 30-0-10	0.3	0.7	3.3
28-3-3, 28-4-6	0.4	0.7	3.6
27-7-7, 27-3-3	0.4	0.7	3.7
25-5-5, 25-3-12	0.4	0.8	4.0
24-8-16, 24-0-15	0.4	0.8	4.2
22-4-4, 22-6-3	0.5	0.9	4.5
21-0-0, 21-3-12	0.5	1.0	4.8
20-20-20, 20-4-8	0.5	1.0	5.0
19-19-19,19-11-12	0.5	1.0	5.3
18-6-12, 18-3-6	0.6	1.1	5.6
16-8-8, 16-4-8	0.6	1.3	6.3
15-15-15, 15-5-5	0.7	1.3	6.7
13-3-9, 13-25-12	0.8	1.5	7.7
12-12-12, 12-4-4	0.8	1.7	8.3
10-10-10, 10-20-10, 10-5-5, 10-10-20	1.0	2.0	10.0
6-12-12, 6-2-0	1.7	3.3	16.7
5-10-10, 5-10-5	2.0	4.0	20.0
Example: If the nitrogen recommendation is for 0.1 pound Nitrogen per 100 square feet, and the fertilizer grade selected has a ratio of 18-6-12 (column 1), apply 0.6 lbs. of this fertilizer per 100 sq. ft.
Note: Two cups (one pint) of dry fertilizer weight about 1 pound.

Understanding Fertilizers

 To maximize productivity, our soils also need routine applications of organic matter to improve soil tilth.  For flower and vegetable gardens, it is desirable to raise the soil organic content, over time, to 4 to 5%.

Manufactured fertilizers are popular with gardeners because they are readily available, inexpensive, easy to apply, and generally provide a quick release of nutrients for plant growth.  Application rates depend on the nutrient need of the soil and the percent of nutrients in the specific fertilizer.  In products containing multiple nutrients, the application rate is always based on the nitrogen content.

Fertilizer or Soil Amendment?

By legal definition, the term fertilizer refers to a soil amendment that guarantees the minimum percentages of nutrients (at least the minimum percentage of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash).

An organic fertilizer refers to a soil amendment derived from natural sources that guarantees the minimum percentages of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash.  These should not be confused with products approved for use by the USDA National Organic Program.  The federal Certified Organic Label, USDA Organic, allows only certain regulated products as listed by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI).  For additional information on certified organic soil amendments and fertilizers, refer to the web site at 

The term soil amendment refers to any material mixed into a soil.  Mulch refers to a material placed on the soil surface.  By legal definition, soil amendments make no legal claims about nutrient content or other helpful (or harmful) effects they will have on the soil and plant growth.  In Colorado, the term compost is also unregulated, and could refer to any soil amendment regardless of active microorganism activity. 

Many gardeners apply organic soil amendments, such as compost or manure, which most often do not meet the legal requirements as a “fertilizer” but add small amounts of nutrients.

What is in a Fertilizer?

Analysis or Grade

By law, all products sold as fertilizer require uniform labeling guaranteeing the minimum percentage of nutrients.  The three-number combination (fertilizer grade or analysis) on the product identifies percentages of nitrogen (N), phosphate (P2O5), and potash (K2O), respectively.  For example, a 20-10-5 fertilizer contains 20% nitrogen, 10% phosphate, and 5% potash. 

Note: Phosphorus, P, is a primary nutrient in plant growth.  The word phosphate, P2O5, refers to the ionic compound containing two atoms of phosphorus with five atoms of oxygen.  The phosphorus content of fertilizers is measured in percent phosphate.

Note: Potassium, K, is a primary nutrient in plant growth.  The word potash, K2O, refers to the ionic compound containing two atoms of potassium with one atom of oxygen.  The potassium content of fertilizers is measured in percent potash.

The product may also identify other nutrients, such as sulfur, iron, and zinc, if the manufacturer wants to guarantee the amount.  This may be done by placing a fourth number on the product label and identifying what nutrient was added in the ingredients.

Ratio

Fertilizer ratio indicates a comparative proportion of nitrogen to phosphate to potash.  For example, a 15-10-5 fertilizer has a ratio of 3-2-1, and an 8-12-4 fertilizer has a ratio of 2-3-1.  Fertilizer recommendations from a soil test are given in ratios.

When shopping for a fertilizer, select a product with a ratio somewhat similar to that desired.  For example, if a soil test recommended a 2-1-0 ratio, the ideal fertilizer would be something like 8-4-0, 10-5-0 or 20-10-0.  However, if you cannot find that exact fertilizer, an 8-4-2 would be similar.  If a garden soil test calls for a 1-0-0 ratio, a 21-0-0 or 24-2-2 fertilizer would be similar. 

Formulation

The formulation tells what specific kinds of fertilizer are in the product.  Table 1 gives examples of manufactured fertilizers that could be mixed to derive any specific analysis, ratio, or brand name.

Table 1. Examples of Manufactured Fertilizers
Product	Nitrogen %	Phospahte %	Potash %
Ammonium nitrate	34	0	0
Ammonium sulfate	21	0	0
Urea	48	0	0
Ammoniated super-phosphate	3-6	48-53	0
Di-ammonium phosphate	11	48	0
Mono-ammonium phosphate	11	48	0
Super-phosphate	0	18-50	0
Triple super phosphate	0	46	0
Potassium chloride	0	0	60
Potassium nitrate	13	0	44
Potassium sulfate	0	0	50
Potassium-magnesium sulfate	0	0	22

What else is in the fertilizer?  In a manufactured fertilizer, the grade does not add up to 100% because the fertilizer also contains other elements like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, iron, zinc, etc.  For example, ammonium nitrate (NH4+ NO3-) has a grade of 34-0-0 with 34% of the content from nitrogen and 66% from hydrogen and oxygen.  Ammonium sulfate (NH4+ SO2- has a grade of 21-0-0 with 21% from the nitrogen and 79% from the hydrogen, sulfur and oxygen. 

Time release or slow release fertilizers contain coating materials or are otherwise formulated to release the nutrients over a period of time as water, heat, and/or microorganisms break down the material. [Table 2]

Table 2. Examples of Quickly and Slowly Available Nitrogen
Quickly available nitrogen Lasts 4-6 weeks	Ammonium sulfate Ammonium nitrate Calcium nitrate Potassium nitrate Urea
Slowly available nitrogen Available over weeks to months Regulated by solubility or microorganism activity	Resin-coated urea Sulfur-coated urea Isobutylidene diurea (IBDU) Methylene urea Urea formaldehyde Manure Poultry wastes Blood meal

In an “organic” type fertilizer, the base is decomposed or processed plant and/or animal by-products.  For example, fish emulsion is ground and processed non-edible fish or fish scraps.  Its nutrient content would be around 8-4-2, with 8% from nitrogen, 4% from phosphate, and 2% from potash.

Some manufactured and “organic” fertilizers contain fillers, which are used to prevent caking, control dust, derive the desired grade, or to facilitate ease of application.

Complete fertilizer is a term used to identify fertilizers that contains nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.  In the national home garden trade, most fertilizers are complete.  However, in Colorado the majority of gardens do not need phosphorus or potassium.  It is advisable to avoid heavy applications of phosphate and potash when unneeded as they contribute to soil salts.

Nitrogen Applications

Nitrogen is the nutrient needed in largest quantities as a fertilizer.  Nitrogen is annually applied by manufactured fertilizer, organic fertilizers, and/or organic soil amendments.  Application rates are critical, as too much or too little directly affect crop growth.

Application rate is based on the soil organic content.  As the organic content increases, nitrogen will be slowly mineralized (released) by the activity of soil microorganisms.  Standard application rates for gardens are given in Table 3.

Nitrogen fertilizer can be broadcast and watered in, or broadcast and tilled into the top few inches of soil.  It can be banded 3-4 inches to the side of the seed row.  Do not place the fertilizer in the seed row or root injury may occur. 

For additional information on fertilizers refer to the CMG GardenNotes #234, Organic Fertilizers, and #711, Vegetable Garden: Soil Management and Fertilization.

Table 3. Standard Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Rate for Gardens
	Soil Organic Content
	Typical garden soil low in organic matter (0-1% organic matter)	Moderate level of organic matter (2-3% organic matter)	High levels of organic matter (4-5% organic matter)
Nitrogen Fertilizer	0.2 pounds actual N per 100 sq. ft.	0.1 pounds actual N per 100 sq. ft.	0
Fertilizer examples
Ammonium sulfate 21-0-0	1 pound fertilizer per 100 square feet (approximately 2 cups)	0.5 pound fertilizer per 100 square feet (approximately1 cup)	0
Ammonium nitrate, 34-0-0	0.6 pounds. fertilizer per 100 sqaure feet (approximately1 1/3 cup)	0.3 pounds. fertilizer per 100 square feet (approximately2/3 cup)	0
Urea, 45-0-0	0.4 pounds. fertilizer per 100 square feet (approximately1 cup)	0.2 pounds fertilizer per 100 square feet. (approximately1/2 cup)	0

Phosphate and Potash Applications

A soil test is the best method to determine the need for phosphate and potash.  When a fertilizer contains a combination of nitrogen with phosphate and/or potash, the application rate is always based on the nitrogen percentage, because nitrogen levels are most critical to plant growth.  Phosphate and potash fertilizers are best applied in the spring or fall when they can be tilled into the soil.

Phosphorus

Phosphate levels are adequate in the majority of Colorado soil.  With annual applications of compost or manure, phosphorus levels will likely be adequate.  Deficiencies are most likely to occur in new gardens where the organic matter content is low and in soils with a high pH (7.8 to 8.3). 

Excessive phosphorus fertilizer can aggravate iron and zinc deficiencies and increase soil salt content.

Where phosphate levels are believed to be low, the standard application rate without a soil test is ¼ to 1 pound triple super phosphate (0-46-0) or ammonium phosphate (18-46-0) per 100 square feet. 

When a phosphate fertilizer is applied to a soil, the phosphorus is quickly immobilized in the soil profile.  It typically moves only about an inch.  Therefore, it needs be tilled into the rooting zone to be most effective.

Phosphorus and Water Quality

In surface water, low phosphorus levels limit the growth of algae and water weeds.  However, when the phosphorus content of surface water increases, algae and water weeds often grow unchecked, a process called eutrophication.  This significant decrease in water quality is a major problem related to manure management in production agriculture and the handling of yard wastes from the landscape environment.

Popular press articles often incorrectly point to phosphorus-containing lawn and garden fertilizers as the major source of phosphate water pollution.  Actually, phosphate fertilizers are rather immobile when applied at correct rates to lawn and garden soils.  Phosphate is so immobile in the typical soil that it generally moves less than one inch after application and thus needs to be tilled into the rooting zone to be effective.

However, high rates of manure applied year after year will build soil phosphorus content where leaching becomes a water quality problem.  On sandy soils coupled with high rainfall/irrigation, excessive application rates of organic or manufactured fertilizers may also lead to water quality concerns. 

According to research at the Univeristy of Minnesota, the primary source of water polluting phosphorus in the landscape environment is the mowing, sweeping or blowing of lawn clipping and leaves onto the gutter and street.  When mowing, mow in a direction to blow the clippings onto the lawn rather than onto the sidewalk or street.  Also sweep any grass on the sidewalk/driveway onto the grass.  When dealing with autumn leaves, avoid blowing them into the street! [Figure 1]

Figure 1.  Grass clippings and leaves mowed or blown into the street are the major source of phosphate pollution from the landscape environment.  Mow in a direction to discharge clippings back onto the lawn and not into the street.

Phosphate in fertilizer is immobilized upon contact with soil and is not a source of phosphate pollution when applied to a lawn (or garden) soil.  However, fertilizer over-spread onto the sidewalk, driveway, and street moves with surface runoff into local lakes, streams and ponds.  Exercise caution when fertilizing to keep the phosphate out of the street.

It is also important to leave an unmowed buffer strip edging all lakes, streams, ponds and wetlands rather than mowing plant residues into the water.

Figure 2. Do not mow grass clipping into lakes, streams or ponds. Rather leave a unmowed buffer strip around the edge.

Second to yard waste management, over-spreading fertilizers onto hard surface (sidewalks, driveways and streets) adds to surface water pollution.  When applying fertilizer, avoid spreading the fertilizer onto hard surfaces where it will wash into local surface water through the storm sewer system.  Sweep any fertilizer that landed on the sidewalk/driveway onto the lawn area.

Another very important source of phosphorus pollution in the landscape setting is erosion of soil from new construction sites, unplanted slopes and poorly maintained landscapes.  When the soil moves, it takes the soil bound phosphorus with it.  For water quality, sloping ground needs to be planted with year-round plant cover to prevent soil erosion.

Figure 3. Soil erosion for construction sites is another major source of phosphorus pollution from the landscape environment.

Potassium

Potassium levels are naturally adequate to high in most Colorado soils.  With annual applications of compost or manure, potassium levels will likely be adequate.  Deficiencies occasionally occur in new gardens low in organic matter and in sandy soils low in organic matter.  A soil test is the best method to determine the need for potassium. 

Excessive potash fertilizer can increase soil salt content.

Where potash levels are believed to be low, the standard application rate without a soil test is ¼ to ½ pound potassium chloride (0-0-60) or potassium sulfate (0-0-50) per 100 square feet.

Movement of potassium in soils is dependent on soil texture.  As the clay content increases, movement decreases.  For most soils, it is important that applied potash be tilled into the root zone.  In sandy soils, potassium could leach down past the root zone.

Specialty fertilizers

For specific uses, specialty fertilizers may be preferred.  For example, on lawns slow release fertilizers are recommended, (see lawn care information for details).  Slow release or time release fertilizers give out small quantities of nutrients over a time period.  The release may be controlled by water, temperature, or microbial activity.  On trees and shrubs, use only slow release products.

In planters and hanging baskets, two popular specialty fertilizers include time release fertilizer (e.g., Osmocote) and water solubles (e.g., MiracleGro and Peters). 

Time release fertilizers (e.g. Osmocote) are designed for indoor and outdoor potted plants.  Each time the soil is watered, a small amount of nutrients are released.  Depending on the specific formulation, it would be applied to the soil once every 3 to 9 months.  In outdoor pots watered daily, it releases faster, having about half the life span of the product used on indoor plants.  Gardeners sometimes see the Osmocote pellets in potted plants and mistake it for insect eggs.

Numerous brands of water solubles are popular in the home garden trade, (e.g., MiracleGro, Peters, Schultz Plant Food, Fertilome Root Stimulator, etc.).  Water soluble fertilizers are mixed with the irrigation water, typically giving a blue or green color.  This can be done in a bucket or hose-on fertilizer applicator.  It is important to water the soil with the fertilizer water, not just wet the leaves. 

Note: Hose-on fertilizer applicators and hose-on pesticide sprayers are not the same thing.  Fertilizer applicators apply a heavier volume because the purpose is to water the soil.  Pesticide applicators release a lower volume, because wetting the leaf is the objective.)  Water solubles are the standard in greenhouse production where the fertilizer is injected into the irrigation water. 

For herbaceous transplants (flowers and vegetables), water soluble fertilizers are recommended at planting and possibly two and four weeks after planting (depending on soil organic matter content).  These are often marketed as root stimulators.  It is the nitrogen content that promotes growth rather than any hormones or vitamins in the product.  On cool springtime soils, the readily available phosphate may also be helpful.  Woody plants (trees and shrubs) do not respond to water soluble fertilizer at planting.