Green Reality Check

What Would Pierre L'Enfant Say?

2012-02-09T15:03:00.000-08:00

Urban planning has traditionally been structured along geometric lines. In the past, the grid system has been the norm, by and large. Naturally, there are exceptions, such as the nation's capital in the U.S. Pierre Charles L'Enfant designed the city streets not only along the lines of a grid system, but with diagonal avenues and circles. Don't ask me why, but he did and it looks real pretty and screws up the tourists like you wouldn't believe. And as for traffic, don't get me started.

Oh, and have I mentioned that the whole mess is divided into four quadrants? Yeah. Big fun.

So when I saw this speech about Connecting the Fractal City, it just about blew my mind.

To wit:

This essay describes distinct types of cities as characterized by their connective geometry. The different types contain entirely different degrees of urban life. The life of a city is directly dependent upon its matrix of connections and substructure, because the geometry either encourages or discourages people's movements and interactions. Such an understanding is crucial for superimposing the electronic city driven by Information and Communication Technologies. Contrary to what is widely assumed, the electronic city is not an automatic outgrowth of the "high-tech" modernist car city, but in fact connects much better to the more human-scaled 19th century city.

Wait! I thought this was a speech. And you're saying that the Internet works better in a 19th century city? Okay.

In order to discuss these purely geometric issues, it is necessary to have a clear definition of terms. I spend some time to define "fractal", "scaling", and "connectivity" in the more technical Appendices to this paper. Urbanists might incorrectly assume my title to mean: "Connecting the disconnected city". Yes, contemporary cities are disconnected, but in a separate sense, they are also not fractal. The distribution of the sizes of urban components and connections can define fundamentally different types of city. A picture emerges of a city made of distinct interacting networks, each of them working on several different scales. Though competing, these networks with very different character have to connect with each other, and cooperate in a seamless fashion to define a living city.

Okay, I know the term "fractal." I once read a book called THE FRACTAL MURDERS. Does that count for anything?

I used to work as a land use attorney, but never had to rely on my shaky recollection of calculus studies.

Now ... if you read the ~~speech~~ essay, you'll see all sorts of ~~bizarre~~ interesting diagrams representing models of future cities.

They run the gamut from these:

To these:

Which all add up, finally, to this:

And in conclusion, the ~~speech~~ essay states:

If we can get over the ideological blinders imposed on the world by otherwise well-meaning but false ideas about "modernity", then we can begin to understand how the urban fabric forms itself and changes dynamically. We can then build new cities that incorporate the best characteristics of traditional cities, while utilizing the latest technology to facilitate instead of frustrating human interactions. At the same time, we can regenerate older cities, which already contain physical structures that would today be impossible to duplicate economically. Those buildings and urban spaces are being sacrificed to an intolerant design dogma, to be replaced by faceless and lifeless rectangular slabs, cubes, and parking lots.

Pathological components of the city can be selected against. Either an underconcentration, or overconcentration of nodes strains the infrastructure and resources of the city. Two extremes are suburban sprawl, and skyscrapers. Individuals desire the first, whereas governments and corporations want the second. Neither is acceptable. The first of these urban typologies uses up most of the automobile fuel in the city for the simplest transportation needs. The second typology concentrates non-interacting people into one building, drawing resources from the rest of the city. The urban forces generated by the overconcentration of a skyscraper tend to erase the urban fabric in a significant area around it. Skyscrapers feed off the rest of the city, and require more infrastructure and larger expressways to maintain them.

The electronic city offers help in two distinct ways. Firstly, it replaces many "dirty" connections of the older city, freeing up infrastructure and fuel consumption. It makes pedestrian pockets in the city much more attractive and practicable than ever before. Secondly, its very structure offers us a template to follow in rebuilding the urban fabric. I mentioned that the internet follows the same structural laws as the traditional city. This should be enough reason to finally discard the misguided, simplistic twentieth-century models of urbanism that did so much to damage our cities. IF WE NEED TO CONNECT THE ELECTRONIC CITY TO A PHYSICAL CITY, THEN THE PHYSICAL CITY MUST FOLLOW THE SAME STRUCTURAL LAWS. By selectively applying successful prototypes from the past, together with insights from the science of networks, we can generate an entirely new type of living contemporary city.

Well, scream whatever you like in capital letters. I think it looks an awful lot like modern-day Washington, DC.

How Do You Ditch Your Drugs?

2012-02-01T17:07:00.000-08:00

When you have drugs that are no longer effective, how do you dispose of them properly?

The Drug Enforcement Agency will help you with that.

Of course, I'm not ~~talking~~ writing about the drug pictured above. That's a controlled substance. Depending on where you live. Kinda.

I'm ~~speaking~~ writing of prescription drugs.

The DEA is doing a big take-back day for old, expired pharmaceuticals.

To quote the site:

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has scheduled another National Prescription Drug Take Back Day which will take place on Saturday, April 28, 2012, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. This is a great opportunity for those who missed the previous events, or who have subsequently accumulated unwanted, unused prescription drugs, to safely dispose of those medications.

This has been done three times before. Apparently. I never knew.

Americans that participated in the DEA’s third National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day on October 29, 2011, turned in more than 377,086 pounds (188.5 tons) of unwanted or expired medications for safe and proper disposal at the 5,327 take-back sites that were available in all 50 states and U.S. territories. When the results of the three prior Take Back Days are combined, the DEA, and its state, local, and tribal law-enforcement and community partners have removed 995,185 pounds (498.5 tons) of medication from circulation in the past 13 months.

Damn! That's a lot of drugs for a program that didn't get a whole lot of press.

“The amount of prescription drugs turned in by the American public during the past three Take-Back Day events speaks volumes about the need to develop a convenient way to rid homes of unwanted or expired prescription drugs,” said DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart. “DEA remains hard at work to establish just such a drug disposal process, and will continue to offer take-back opportunities until the proper regulations are in place.”

Right. These are take-back opportunities, aren't they? Not confiscations?

“With the continued support and hard work of our more than 3,945 state, local, and tribal law enforcement and community partners, these three events have dramatically reduced the risk of prescription drug diversion and abuse, and increased awareness of this critical public health issue,” said Leonhart.

Just say no to drugs, okay?

Please check back in March to locate collection sites near you.

I'll be sure and do that.

What's Your Point Exactly?

2012-01-24T18:46:00.000-08:00

This post is supposed to be about how Amazon sold a whole sh*tload of Kindles over the holidays, but questions how green the devices are.

Here's the thing. I'm an ebook author, who also supports indie bookstores and sells print editions of my books, even if the stores won't carry them, because ~~of their weird policies~~ I'm self-published. If you read the article, you'll see the following (and I quote):

One of those things that still bring a twinge of sadness is the slow death of independent book-stores. As an avid reader and one that loves to browse around second-hand bookshops, on the lookout for a bargain or a rare read, I will miss the romance of it all as the world is rapidly shifting toward e-books. E-books, of course, have functionality and convenience but not the fresh-paper smell or other associations that we have with real books.

I'm also a big fan of independent bookstores. In fact, I've blogged about how I'd like to throw them my support. This has led to a series of posts on that blog about indie bookstores, that I hope have been helpful and fun.

You'll notice I suggested that indie bookstores start blogs, because you can sell anything online. Not just ebooks, of course.

As for ~~second-hand~~ used bookstores, that's all well and good when you're looking for collectibles and out-of-print books. But surely you want to read more than that, right?

Besides, authors don't see dime one from the sale of used books. So, we don't sustain a living from those sales at all.

And, furthermore, a story is just as real in ebook format as in print. No one says that audiobooks aren't real, do they? Why do they say that about ebooks? What's the deal? Seriously?

One of the biggest selling e-readers, Amazon’s Kindle has had a whopper year. The company recently announced that 2011 was the best holiday ever for the Kindle family as customers purchased millions of Kindle Fires and millions of Kindle e-readers. The company also notes that sales of e-books were up 175 percent over last year, between Black Friday and Christmas Day.

Just so you know, Kindle isn't the only widely-used ereader in existence, okay? There's Nook, there's Kobo, there's iPad, Sony and all sorts of other devices. You'd think Amazon sold practically the only device on the planet from reading this. And that's not good.

The reigning debate that still remains is: which one is greener? The Cleantech Group reckons that the Kindle is the greener way to read. A study by the Cleantech Group found that the Kindle is able to fully offset its carbon emissions in the first year of use, as long as the owner downloads more than 22 books in a year, and additional years of use result in net carbon savings equivalent to an average of 168 kilograms of carbon dioxide.

Good lord! I suspect most Kindle owners download that many books in a month or less, easily. The amazingly low price of ebooks and the ease of purchase are factors that explain this.

Throughout the month of December, according to Amazon, well over 1 million Kindle devices were purchased per week. All this will eventually add up to a huge amounts of e-waste, which is an environmental problem. Amazon’s refusal to be transparent about its production as well as carbon emissions are also causes for concern. Consumer pressure or a large scale campaign can change this but so far, the figures that are available are only guesstimates.

Yeah, well. God knows what Amazon isn't telling us. And if you're really concerned about indie bookstores, I suggest you read this post, post-haste.

My fellow blogger at Triple Pundit, Raz Godelnik, CEO of Eco-Libris, a company working towards a sustainable book industry reckons that an e-book can be a greener option if you are a voracious reader and do not upgrade too soon. A New York Times analysis seems to support Raz’s conclusion and it says that an e-reader can offset around 40 books. Therefore, if you replace five books a year, it will take around eight years before you’ve offset your carbon footprint.

As I said before, no problemo!

Considering that, in a few years down the line, paper books may well be obsolete, it is essential for e-reader manufacturers to become more transparent about their sustainability. Amazon, as the market leader, should lead the way. I did really want to buy a Kindle but I think I will put it off until Amazon comes up with some verified numbers. In the meantime, I’ll continue to mosey around secondhand bookshops and libraries.

I love libraries, of course. I'm a librarian. It would be sacrilege to say otherwise. Besides, did you know that libraries carry ebooks now? Well, they do and have been for some time.

And speaking of sustainability, did you forget to mention the indie bookstores?

Because if you're going to mosey around used bookstores, the indies are not going to last very long. And neither will authors.

Let's Focus on the Positive, Shall We?

2012-01-17T16:37:00.000-08:00

A blog post with a headline like Sustainability: Why Bother? would lead one to suspect that the sustainability movement may be suffering a bit from inertia.

Which is why you should read the post. Because it tells about how being sustainable can actually help companies cut costs, reduce risks and increase revenue, with numbers to support those contentions.

And while it cites only a few specifics, that's way better than none, isn't it?

PS: Here's another really cool idea. A zero-emissions delivery vehicle. I'm having a hard time picturing this thing ~~surviving a day on~~ negotiating the streets of DC. But, hey, who knows, right?

Photograph by: Lyle Stafford, timescolonist.com

Plastic Bags: Does it Have to Be So Hard?

2012-01-11T20:42:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I'm innocently scanning environmental news headlines and run across this dilly! In Defense of the Plastic Bag.

Well, that'll get your attention, won't it?

So ... I took a quick look. Here's some of what it said:

Pity the much-maligned plastic bag.

Plastic bags are being banned or taxed in cities and counties across America–just this week in Seattle, before that in San Francisco, Portland and Washington, D.C. Beginning in January, Montgomery County, MD, where I live, will impose a five-cent charge for carryout bags at all retail stores. Like most of my neighbors (median household income in the county tops $92,000) I can afford the extra nickel.

But I’m not persuaded that plastic bag bans or taxes makes sense. Here’s why.

They’re not based on science. Independent studies show that plastic bags are environmentally preferable to paper. Other suggest that, when they are reused, they are preferable to the reusable plastic or cloth sacks that many of us tote around.

Some of the arguments put forth for the bans don’t hold up. That plastic waste waste in the oceans you’ve probably read about? No, it’s not the size of Texas. Nor is it made of plastic bags.

Getting rid carryout bags won’t lead to a long-term solution to the problem of plastic waste. Maybe instead of banning or taxing bags, we should be recycling them. That’s the argument being put forth by a company called Hilex Poly, which will recycle tens of millions of pounds of plastic bags, sacks and wraps this year, and would like to do more.

You may disagree but after digging into this subject for a while, I’m certain about only one thing: It’s complicated.

Oh, goodie. Complicated, huh? Just what I needed. More complications in my life.

So ... if you want to read the whole blow-by-blow explanation, just click the link. It even alludes to the old "~~sh*t~~ crap in the bag" argument against using reusable bags. Dear God!

But wait ... there's more. A rebuttal. In Defense of Plastic Bag Bans. Really!

Happy Sustainable Holidays!

2011-12-29T15:00:00.000-08:00

In reading through the environmental news headlines, I couldn't help but notice this one. The words Sustainability and Christmas Trees: Lets Get Real jumped right out at me.

Clearly, it's a bit late in the ~~day~~ month to blog about whether you should choose a natural or artificial Christmas tree. However, that's not what my post is about. My post is intended to examine just how well the headline delivers on its promise.

Now the post I've embedded makes some excellent points and gets very real about the Christmas tree part of things. To wit:

Christmas is, by all standards, a not very sustainable holiday. People shop, travel and eat much more than they should, and their carbon footprint goes through their snow-covered roofs. Of course there are ways of mitigating the Christmas carbon extravaganza by traveling using the least dirty means of transport (rail, if possible), sharing eco presents and making a meal with organic, local produce that excludes meat.

But there’s that elephant in the room called ‘the Christmas tree’. It’s big and it invites the question: how green is it? For a while some people tried to plug it to the world that plastic Christmas trees were greener because they could be re-used. However, a thorough comparison between the two options illustrates that real trees are more sustainable for several reasons including the fact that in most cases the plastic ones are only used a couple of times. Besides, who wants to increase demand for yet more toxic plastic in the world?

You'll get no argument from me there!

So, yes, getting a real Christmas tree is more sustainable than getting a fake one. But even better than that is renting a Christmas tree, an idea that has taken root in England where it was championed during the famous Ideal Home Show At Christmas that took place mid-November.

When people rent a Christmas tree they get a pruned and potted plant for the season celebration. Then it is collected in the new year and replanted to be rented out the following Christmas. Of course the tree will keep growing and once it is too big for a home they will be planted out in schools, nursing homes etc., and absorb quite a bit of carbon, according to the Little Tree Company, which supports the Christmas tree rental scheme.

Renting a tree? Seriously? Ooo-kay. Hmm ...

Why not just decorate a Norfolk Island pine? Or a ficus? That's what we used to do. Before ours ~~croaked~~ ~~died~~ expired.

If such a scheme is not available in your neck of the wood, there are a few details to look out for when it comes to choosing a sustainable Christmas tree. First, the hard facts: they do not come from fairytale crops where every tree is harvested by a rosy-cheeked Norwegian. They come from monocrops that are often sprayed with fertilizers and herbicides.

Yuck!

So, when sourcing a real Christmas tree, look out for providers of organic Christmas trees (Greenpromise has a list). Another tip: try to find a tree that has been grown as close to home as possible. If you get a felled tree instead of a potted tree, inquire from your local authority whether it offers a collection service. This kind of planning is essential if you don’t want to end up with a massive tree in the house and not knowing what to do with it.

Finally, you can stay away completely from the fake versus real and go for the arty approach to sustainable Christmas trees. This reusable eco Christmas tree looks nothing short of fabulous and would add an imaginative touch to the decor (besides busting the kitschy potential of a traditional Christmas tree!). Or you can turn popcorn into a Christmas tree, which should be fun a lot of fun to make.

Hey, all we ever do is string lights around the house and put candles in the window. Who needs a tree, anyhow?

Hope you had a very happy holiday and wishing you all good things for the new year! BTW, I don't believe in New Year's resolutions, but I believe in setting goals. May your goals be achieved and be sustainable. :)

10 Ways to Go Green for Christmas Dinner

2011-12-23T20:08:00.000-08:00

If you're interested in trying to make your holiday dinner a more eco-friendly experience, here's a post that may be helpful.

As the headline indicates, it has a list of 10 ways to "go green for Christmas dinner."

Looks like a really good list, too. There's even a link to healthy gluten free vegetarian recipes at the bottom of the post. Now, how about that?

You can also follow these people on Twitter: @theblendergirl and @tessmasters.

There's also a Facebook page.

And I'm sure these suggestions work, no matter what holiday you celebrate at this time of year. Even Festivus. Right? ;)

Force of Nature: A Film That Looks Intriguing

2011-12-20T18:32:00.000-08:00

The headline Dear Humans: The Planet Needs Your Help caught my attention. Imagine my surprise when it turned out to be a movie review.

The film is called Force of Nature. Here's the full text of the review:

Sturla Gunnarsson’s “Force of Nature: The David Suzuki Movie” is constructed around a speech that its Japanese-Canadian subject — an engaging, erudite scientist, educator, broadcaster and eco-activist — calls his “legacy lecture.” The talk, given in Vancouver last December, is a dire warning delivered in a reasonable, friendly voice about the imminent destruction of the biosphere that sustains humankind. Dr. Suzuki’s upbeat tone is the spoonful of sugar that makes the bitter medicine go down.

WTF? Is this a review of Force of Nature or Mary Poppins?

Interwoven with the lecture is a fragmentary autobiography, which includes some painful early chapters about Dr. Suzuki’s relocation as a child to an internment camp during World War II. “Pearl Harbor and its repercussions are the defining events in my life,” he says. Later he participated in the civil rights movement and became the host of “The Nature of Things,” a CBC show in which he showed his talent for translating scientific jargon into layman’s language.

Believe it or not, translating scientific jargon into layman's language is an actual skill. Give the guy a bit of credit, okay?

At heart Dr. Suzuki, 75, is a wise old hippie who truly cares about the planet and the future of the species and seems to believe, despite his words, that we still have time to save ourselves if we act immediately. But how, he doesn’t say.

Well, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who could say, wouldn't you? Who has the answer? Who even agrees that there's a problem that we've created? I think that's the point. That we are part of the problem. And we need to find solutions based upon that assumption, okay?

The Haida, an indigenous people on the Pacific Northwest coast who have stood up against the logging industry and with whom Dr. Suzuki is shown interacting, represent his ideal of how to live in harmony with nature. “We fail to ask the important questions: How much is enough? Are there no limits?” he declares. “One species — us — is single-handedly altering the planet. We have become a force of nature.”

Making a mystical leap but using scientific language, he declares that we are the environment. He says that we are the air we breathe and the water we drink, and that we are ultimately one another, as we recycle the same elements. He doesn’t really analyze the dark side of human nature.

Hold on! Now we're talking about a whole different movie.

What he sees in the future is alarming. The world population has grown exponentially and now threatens to exhaust the finite resources that we take for granted and carelessly contaminate. We all carry several pounds of plastic and dozens of toxic molecules dissolved in our bodies, he says. And, he estimates, 50,000 species a year become extinct. In less than a century 80 percent of our forests have been cut down, he says.

Damn! I'm pretty freaking alarmed. Aren't you? And I'd say we have ourselves to blame for much of the problem, which I believe was his point.

Contemplating human evolution, he credits the brain as having made humans the dominant species. It gave us curiosity and creativity and the gift of foresight, he observes. So why hasn’t that gift prompted a collective response to the crisis? He offers no practical solutions.

Fine, smart ass. You come up with them.

Is 'Green' Cement Actually Sustainable?

2011-12-11T16:27:00.000-08:00

You know, when you come down to it, there are some things we've come to depend upon as a society without thinking about it much. I'd say cement is one of those things.

Think of all the roads, the buildings, the bridges, drainage ditches, and so on and so forth.

In point of fact, we rely upon cement for our infrastructure and other needs.

Therefore, this article about an engineer who's trying to develop a more eco-friendly form of cement was most interesting.

I highly recommend you read it, because I had no idea there was so much to know about cement.

Here's the thing, I guess.

Check the bottom lines (and I quote):

The major obstacle that the company still has to overcome is history. Portland cement works. Always has, since that afternoon in 1824 in Joseph Aspdin’s kitchen. "Cement has been around a very long time," [Dheeraj] Bhardwaj said. "People trust that. They can look around at all the buildings that have survived hundreds of years. So for Novacem, the proof of durability will take time. They will have to go slow. If I have to build a bridge or a building using Novacem cement, how do I convince people that that is OK? That's the challenge. Nobody wants a bridge to fall down."

Asked whether he would cross a bridge built with Novacem cement, Bhardwaj said, "I would have no problem with that." But that bridge hasn't been built yet.

Yeah. You might want to make real sure before you build that bridge, too.

Green on Green -- A Place to Look for Ideas

2011-12-03T17:41:00.000-08:00

You know, it's so easy for people to go around blaming everyone else for the problems we're having with the environment.

Whatever happened to the idea of living sustainably in order to save the planet? Whatever happened to the idea of making rational choices in order to do the right thing in the long run?

And whatever happened to the notion that one person can make a difference?

Well ... FWIW, here's one person with a website that I really like. Green on Green is Suzanne Green's site, featuring green products (yes, I know ... but hear me out, okay?).

Here's the copy, straight from the site:

Our mission is to show that being GREEN, and living sustainably, can be easy, fun and inexpensive. We do that with our educational Environmental Documentaries and our One Minute Eco Tips. Topics can include green washing, misunderstandings about supposed GREEN materials like processed Bamboo, native vegetation and even misconceptions about recycling. Current developments, in the Eco arena, are discussed. GREEN/sustainability questions, which come in from site visitors, are answered.

We do have a GREEN Boutique of specially screened products. The proceeds are used to fund our Environmental Mini Documentaries and one minute Eco Tips. Be sure to check out our videos. We will be adding new ones every month. Thank you for visiting our website!

Now, while I haven't tried Green's products nor do I offer product endorsements, I have watched a couple of her videos and read her blog posts. I found them interesting and informative.

And, frankly, her mission sounds remarkably similar to -- ahem! -- the one on this blog (sans green products, of course).

For all I know, she may be doing a much better job.

So, I'm offering this information because I think it's at least worth a look. Beats the hell out of blaming others and doing nothing, huh? :)

Don't Let Those 'Use By' Dates Fool You

2011-11-23T21:15:00.000-08:00

Here's an article that's well worth the reading this time of year. You know those dates they stamp on food, like "sell by," "use by," and "best before"?

Well ... those dates aren't indications that you can't eat the food, okay? Those dates are just suggestions.

In the words of the article, "Suggestions. For peak quality. That's all."

The article goes on to state:

If this is news to you, you're not alone. Research on date labeling in the U.K. by the organization WRAP shows that 45 to 49 percent of consumers misunderstand the meaning of the date labels, resulting in an enormous amount of prematurely discarded food. In fact, WRAP estimates that a full 20 percent of food waste is linked to date labeling confusion. Of course, that also means 20 percent more sales for manufacturers recommending those dates. After all, if your milk goes bad, you don't stop drinking milk; you just go to the store and buy some more.

Amazing! Tell me more ...

"Sell-by" dates are equally problematic. The goal of sell-by dates is to help stores stock and shelve their goods. Sell-by dates are designed to indicate a product is still fresh enough for a consumer to take it home and keep in their fridge for days or weeks. Most stores discard products as soon as they're past their sell-by dates. It's understandable. Many consumers would balk at buying something with an expired date, especially since they may not understand the date's meaning.

Yeah, well. I could easily understand that.

But the cost of this waste is significant. In American Wasteland, a book that examines the massive quantities of food we waste from farm to fork, an industry expert estimates grocery stores discard $2,300 worth of "out-of-date" food goods each day. Even worse, the waste continues at home, since many consumers also misinterpret this date and discard products with weeks of good shelf life remaining. And all that adds up to a huge amount of wasted resources, with serious impacts to our land, air, and water.

Don't these people have a sense of taste or smell? I guess not ...

The good news is that there's a pretty straightforward solution to all this confusion and waste. It's a system called "closed dating," which uses a code to communicate information on product freshness to stores for stocking and shelving purposes without confusing consumers in the process.

As for the "use-by" and "best-by" sisters, there are two routes the system could take to reduce confusion and waste. Government could regulate dates more closely so that they serve as genuine indicators of food safety, as consumers already believe. But since the government can't predict when you'll accidentally leave your milk in a warm car for an hour, this can get tricky.

Oh, please! Try not being an idiot.

The alternative would be to eliminate the confusing array of dates completely and for consumers to once again rely on the wisdom of their senses to determine if food is edible. If that milk smells rotten, by all means throw it away. But if it smells like good milk and tastes like good milk, it makes little sense to pour it down the drain because the manufacturer has suggested to you that it's bad.

There are, of course, options in between -- government regulation of some items and no dates on others; no regulation but increased education around the current system; or simply teaching people about safe food.

Or maybe using a little common sense.

And Here's Why I Love the Internet

2011-11-19T17:01:00.000-08:00

As you may know, I have five (count 'em, five) blogs. And I write fiction and self-publish it. And market my own work.

And I also happen to be a ~~cripple~~ ~~gimp~~ physically impaired person, due to a rare movement disorder.

So ... I'm really sorry I don't update this blog as much as I should. Honest!

But I keep it going because I really care about the subject, and I refuse to post crap just for the sake of it.

Now, this post is about Coca-Cola. All I have to say is this: Things don't always go better with Coke from a sustainability perspective.

Please click on the link for further details, okay?

Much of it pertains to this PSA, which frankly made me want to puke in my mouth a bit, anyhow.

And here's the original ad. Which didn't make me nearly as sick, actually ...

PS: Thanks Raz Godelnik for doing all the typing for me. :)

Would You Like Fries with That?

2011-11-10T18:02:00.000-08:00

Be vewy quiet. David Gracer is bug hunting.

He's not a collector. He's hunting for food.

Crickets, grasshoppers and other critters. That's what's for dinner.

Check out the video. He'll "offer you a market price."

All you have to do is spend two hours spreading chemical scent around and you can attract enough bugs to feed a whole sh*tload of people.

"I should be doing this I know," Gracer says.

Gracer says a whole lot about what we should do.

At the beginning of the video, he says it's ironic how eating bugs makes people uncomfortable, because it doesn't fit with their lifestyle. Much like they're used to driving in their cars everywhere. He says this while he's driving a car, and totally fails to notice the irony. Apparently.

He makes the amazing observation that, "Most insects do not taste better than lobster." Well, duh!

He even recites his cockroach recommendations. He won't eat all of them. Some taste awful. Imagine!

And since we're heading for calamity eventually, Gracer says, "I get to be right eventually." Awesome.

BTW, he had a couple of bugs called walking sticks in his frig. In one country, they keep them as pets AND eat them. Weird.

Transparency May Actually Cloud the Issues

2011-11-04T16:56:00.000-07:00

Here's the thing. I happened to find this article called Fighting the 'Dirty Cloud': Responsible tech firms hit by cloud and supply chain confusion. Well, with a headline like that, I was intrigued.

So, I started reading the article. And it said ...

Samsung, Fujitsu, Apple & Microsoft emissions hit by cloud computing and supply chain

Samsung has biggest carbon footprint with over 55m tonnes of CO2-e

Intel supply chain accounts for 43m tonnes of its CO2-e figure

Are your eyes glazing over? Mine were. But I kept reading, anyway. I'm a trooper.

Sustainability data publishing site Ecodesk has revealed that carbon emissions targets at leading technology companies such as Samsung, Intel, Microsoft, Apple and Fujitsu are being hit by a shift to cloud computing and supply chain reporting. Samsung and Intel in particular have seen their CO₂emissions rocket due to the inclusion of their supply chain.

Ecodesk profiled over 50 of the top technology companies among hundreds of other global businesses, claims that many supposedly ‘green’ companies and rankings which claim steady declines in emissions figures are completely misleading, Ecodesk data shows that in fact tech companies with the highest carbon footprints are actually the most responsible.

Hmm ... so the most "green" companies that claim to have declining emissions actually have a larger carbon footprint. Hmm. Pray tell, how did that happen?

Samsung, Intel and Apple for example have high CO₂-e but both businesses include the emissions of their respective supply chains (called GHG Scope 3) as part of their standard reporting, following recent guidelines by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The result is that on the surface they look like big polluters. Intel’s carbon footprint is 46m tonnes of CO₂ but its supply chain accounts for about 96% of its total emissions.

Oh, sh*t! So ... if the company is honest and reports emissions that their suppliers make as part of being transparent, the company ends up looking worse. I think that's what this is saying ... oh, dear.

“Tech companies in particular are leading the charge and being very bold by forfeiting their own emission targets to embrace the emissions produced by third parties,” said Robert Clarke, CEO at Ecodesk. “The shift to embrace cloud computing and supply chains has meant that each company that embraces what we feel is the most comprehensive model experience their own emissions shoot up although the overall impact on the environment is reduced significantly by cloud computing, and supply chain imperatives. I have no doubt that this is the right move for the environment although on first glance it doesn’t look good in terms of hitting emissions targets.”

Wow, that's a whole lot of words. And I have no idea what this guy is saying at all.

The problem with cloud computing is also compounded by whether a cloud is deemed ‘clean’ or ‘dirty’. While embracing the cloud does have longer term environmental benefits, technology companies have to ensure they are dealing with data centres which employ progressive sustainability measures, like Apple, who use renewable power sources and highly advanced efficiency in power consumption, from lighting to cooling.

“It is very important to assess the net carbon impact of the ‘after scenario’,” said Alison Rowe, Global Executive Director of Sustainability at Fujitsu. “If you have a clean data centre with renewable energy and you move that into a ‘dirty’ cloud powered by coal then this isn’t an improvement.”

“The large tech companies are working hard on improving their emissions and reporting transparency,” added Clarke. “Extending their carbon footprints to their supply chains and ultimately making the whole industry more responsible can only be a good thing for the environment. They will also realise very significant cost savings in reduced logistics and energy use. The economic drivers are huge.”

Yeah, I'll bet. Good luck with all that.

Sustainability Can Be Rational. Go Figure.

2011-10-29T14:47:00.000-07:00

The subject of how to live a sustainable life and keep our planet from being destroyed, etc., etc., is so hot button that it tends to provoke a whole lot of ~~nutters~~ people with strongly-held views. One group of ~~nutters~~ pundits (that's the word!) tend to want to blame all the problems of the world on all the rich people.

Gee, if it were only that simple.

Don't get me wrong. I am in no way, shape or form a Tea Partier. They're just another set of ~~nutters~~ pundits, as far as I'm concerned.

And I don't think the answer is just to get angry and lash out without thinking, while pretending we're at Woodstock.

I believe, first and foremost, in personal choices and in taking responsibility for your actions.

Having said that, the question is what can one do as an individual to help the planet?

Well, this man thinks one person CAN make a difference.

Take a look at the video. It doesn't have all the answers, of course. But it does at least provide a rational approach to solving the problem. Quite possibly.

Beats the hell out of waving banners and shouting slogans, don't you think? Or finger pointing, for that matter.

Let's All Point Fingers

2011-10-26T13:40:00.000-07:00

Is overpopulation to blame for our environmental problems? Absolutely not, according to this Grist article, even though the world population will reach 7 billion this month. That's a seriously huge freaking number of people, people!

The article goes on to say:

The approach of that milestone has produced a wave of articles and opinion pieces blaming the world's environmental crises on overpopulation. In New York's Times Square, a huge and expensive video declares that "human overpopulation is driving species extinct." In London's busiest Underground stations, electronic poster boards warn that 7 billion is ecologically unsustainable.

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich's bestseller The Population Bomb declared that as a result of overpopulation, "the battle to feed humanity is over," and the 1970s would be a time of global famines and ever-rising death rates. His predictions were all wrong, but four decades later his successors still use Ehrlich's phrase -- too many people! -- to explain environmental problems.

But most of the 7 billion are not endangering the earth. The majority of the world's people don't destroy forests, don't wipe out endangered species, don't pollute rivers and oceans, and emit essentially no greenhouse gases.

Oh, really. Check your facts. A whole lot of people in this country use pesticides and fertilizers on their lawns. This leads to runoff into streams and rivers, which leads to water pollution. Duh!

And these people also drive cars. Remember cars? You people write articles about them, too. And you rip people every which way for driving in cars instead of riding bicycles, even if they're incapable of doing so. Apparently.

Now, let's talk about housing, shall we? What do you think houses are made of? Hmm ... straw? No. Mud? No. Plastic? Naw. :) Wood? I think so. In which case, the population does correlate in some way with the destruction of forests, don't you think? Hmm?

Even in the rich countries of the Global North, most environmental destruction is caused not by individuals or households, but by mines, factories, and power plants run by corporations that care more about profit than about humanity's survival.

Even so, such corporations provide goods or services to said large populations of people and would not exist but for them, right?

No reduction in U.S. population would have stopped BP from poisoning the Gulf of Mexico last year.

I'm sorry. What does this have to do with the price of eggs?

Lower birthrates won't shut down Canada's tar sands, which Bill McKibben has justly called one of the most staggering crimes the world has ever seen.

Ditto.

Universal access to birth control should be a fundamental human right -- but it would not have prevented Shell's massive destruction of ecosystems in the Niger River delta, or the immeasurable damage that Chevron has caused to rainforests in Ecuador.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record.

Ironically, while populationist groups focus attention on the 7 billion, protestors in the worldwide Occupy movement have identified the real source of environmental destruction: not the 7 billion, but the 1%, the handful of millionaires and billionaires who own more, consume more, control more, and destroy more than all the rest of us put together.

Ha ha ha ... tell me another one.

In the United States, the richest 1% own a majority of all stocks and corporate equity, giving them absolute control of the corporations that are directly responsible for most environmental destruction.

I guess you've never heard of mutual funds? 401(k) plans? Guess what stocks and equities make up parts of those funds? Many members of the 99 percent have these plans. They call them investment plans for their retirement. So let's talk about how clean the 99 percenters hands are, okay?

Because 99 percent takes in a WHOLE lot of people, remember? And the planet has billions of people on it now.

So ... what's the answer? Keep having kids?

Well ... in conclusion, the article states:

Critics of the too many people argument are often accused of believing that there are no limits to growth. In our case, that simply isn't true. What we do say is that in an ecologically rational and socially just world, where large families aren't an economic necessity for hundreds of millions of people, population will stabilize. In Betsy Hartmann's words, "The best population policy is to concentrate on improving human welfare in all its many facets. Take care of the population and population growth will go down."

The world's multiple environmental crises demand rapid and decisive action, but we can't act effectively unless we understand why they are happening. If we misdiagnose the illness, at best we will waste precious time on ineffective cures; at worst, we will make the crises worse.

The too many people argument directs the attention and efforts of sincere activists to programs that will not have any substantial effect. At the same time, it weakens efforts to build an effective global movement against ecological destruction: It divides our forces, by blaming the principal victims of the crisis for problems they did not cause.

Above all, it ignores the massively destructive role of an irrational economic and social system that has gross waste and devastation built into its DNA. The capitalist system and the power of the 1%, not population size, are the root causes of today's ecological crisis.

As pioneering ecologist Barry Commoner once said, "Pollution begins not in the family bedroom, but in the corporate boardroom."

Okay, just WTF do you people want?

Being Green is Not All Black and White

2011-10-19T19:25:00.000-07:00

These are what you might call "interesting times." What with well-intended folks writing articles like this one, this one and this one, well ... you might get all confused and think Operation [Insert Location] is just a big spread out version of this, without the musicians.

Well, most of those performers ended up either dead or rich. Anyhoo ...

In recognition that this is a hot button topic and the sources above lean a bit to the left, it seems only fair to point out that you guys are hopping on the bandwagon with these guys.

So. Not. Cool.

I've posted about my own personal concerns regarding Operation Wall Street here. I'm submitting it for your consideration, for what it's worth. However, you might want to ask yourself, who's behind all this? And whose side are they on?

PS: You want contemporary Woodstock? Got it right here!

PPS: Avoid the brown acid. And don't drink the Kool Aid.

Getting Wry on Tuna

2011-10-14T10:11:00.000-07:00

Do you enjoy eating tuna? Fish is supposed to be good food, right? Those healthy oils and all. With a minimum of pollutants from the water they swim in, one hopes. But I digress ...

Well, the thing is that bluefin tuna is being fished to extinction. Yeah. According to this article:

What would you pay for the last piece of Toro in the world? Is that an economic question or a moral one? Either way, someone may actually buy that last piece of Toro within the next decade. Toro, or kuro maguro, is the luscious, ethereal belly flesh of bluefin tuna, often the most expensive menu item in a sushi restaurant. Yet bluefin tuna species (there are three) are in dire straits. Stocks are purported to be below 15 percent of virgin stock levels and imminent collapse is predicted, possibly as soon as 2012.

Yeah. Pretty lousy, huh? And what follows is a fairly glum discussion of economics and grim realities about possible bluefin stockpiling and the fact that no one owns fish who live in the open sea. So, like whatta ya gonna do, huh?

Well, the article provides a few suggestions at the end, to wit:

Try following San Francisco’s Tataki Sushi Bar co-founder Casson Trenor’s 4-S rule: eat small fish, fish in season, fish served with silver (skin) on them, and shellfish. You can also refer to Trenor’s website, Sustainable Sushi, or the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Sushi Guide. Let’s return to the question posed at the beginning of this piece, what would you pay for Toro if you knew it was extinct, or at least commercially extinct? For me, eating a wild fish on the brink of extinction is no longer a question of price, but is indeed a moral question.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did we just swim in a circle?

PS: The answer isn't in genetically engineered salmon. Apparently.

PPS: Here's an awesome quote from a guy who was way ahead of his time, because I owe you all BIG time.

Grist on Gibson Guitars and the Lacey Act

2011-10-05T15:35:00.000-07:00

Last month, I wrote a post about Gibson Guitars and its possible violations of the Lacey Act, by (maybe) importing illegally logged wood.

The guitar manufacturer claims it's being unfairly targeted by the federales.

Here's a Grist article by Glenn Hurowitz that discusses the situation in far greater detail. It's the fourth article of four, so be sure and read the first three parts, too. The links are included in the introduction.

BTW, you realize Grist isn't a big huge fan of the Tea Party, right? :)

Oh, and here's a disclosure statement at the bottom of the article:

Full disclosure: Glenn Hurowitz is currently doing communications work for the Environmental Investigation Agency, a nonprofit advocacy organization that is campaigning to protect the Lacey Act from corporate, Tea Party, and Republican attacks. He wrote these articles as a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, a nonprofit that also works to stop illegal logging.

Thanks for your candor, Glenn! :)

Now ... here's a guy who's come to be rather closely associated with Gibson Guitars.

Converting Sh*t to Shinola in Nigeria

2011-09-28T15:44:00.000-07:00

According to this CNN report, a microbiologist and inventor in Lagos, Nigeria, is exploring ways to convert raw human sewage into free, clean energy.

Olatunbosun Obayomi, the 29-year-old Lagosian microbiologist and inventor who has lived in the city all his life, says:

"With a cheap retrofit, household septic tanks -- the source of the sewage -- can be converted into biogas generators."

Obayomi further claims:

"The idea of turning waste into energy has been around for centuries. My innovation is simply applying the chemistry in a practical way by using the resources we already have."

However ...

"Unfortunately, the system of water pipes is very disorganized, and they often pass through the same place where the sewage is dumped," said Obayomi. "And it's not uncommon for poorly constructed septic tanks to leak directly into the drainage system."

Nonetheless ...

... rather than attempt a wholesale overhaul of Nigeria's waste system, Obayomi's approach makes use of the existing septic tanks -- equipping them with new waste entry pipes that remove oxygen from the decaying process.

And so ...

"Converting waste into biogas is a win-win strategy," said Sarah Butler-Sloss, founding director of the Ashden Awards, an organization that champions local energy innovations around the world.

"What makes it so elegant is that it resolves a life-threatening sanitation issue -- by treating harmful, waterborne germs -- while simultaneously creating a much-needed source of carbon-free energy," she said.

Huzzah!

Butler-Sloss added that recent figures from the U.N. say 1.4 billion people worldwide have no access to electricity, while 2.7 billion still prepare food on grossly inefficient and carbon-hungry open fires.

"We have seen similar projects in places like India and China -- where everything from domestic garbage to animal waste has been used to produce energy with great success ... Clearly this is the time to embrace domestically produced biogas, especially in the developing world."

It's a view shared by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

Awesome!

Patrick Mwefigye is program officer for sustainable consumption and production at UNEP's regional office for Africa. He says that in areas where there is "little funding, capacity or infrastructure" for complex waste management, "we see the production of biogas as having great potential."

At present, Mwefigye says the gas is regularly produced in just a handful of African nations.

"In Rwanda, for instance, the prisons have been fitted with large biogas generators, so that they are almost entirely self-powering," he said.

But, although Obayomi's retrofitted biogas generator is relatively cheap to build -- requiring only low-tech materials such as plastic pipes, cement and sand -- and despite all the recognition it's attracted, only a prototype has been installed so far.

Yet Obayomi conservatively estimates that the average street in Lagos could produce 1,720 liters of biogas a day -- enough for an engine-powered water pump to serve the daily domestic needs of at least 50 families.

So what's the hold-up?

Great question.

Here's the whole explanation. But I'd pay particular attention to the bottom line.

"Biogas generators tend to be constructed in situ," said Butler-Sloss, "And while the materials are relatively cheap, they're not mass-produced like solar panels or wind-turbines so, at present, it's difficult to scale-up."

Obayomi has a different take, however. For him, it's not an issue of resources or need, but attitude.

"Although I've been filmed by government TV and won these awards, no politician has approached me to build anything. In Nigeria there is a lot of talk but very little walk," he lamented.

There is also a problem of credibility, he said. In Obayomi's experience, the hardest place to be taken seriously as a Nigerian inventor is in Nigeria itself.

"It is a new concept for many Nigerians," he said. "There's still this feeling that unless an idea or a piece of new technology comes from the West, then it's not glamorous ... it's not valid."

Patagonia: We're Not Your Father's Retailer

2011-09-22T15:25:00.000-07:00

Well, this is a new one ... a clothing retailer that's encouraging consumers not to buy their products unless they really need them. Hmm ...

But that's what Patagonia is doing according to this post.

Patagonia has apparently set up a program encouraging reusing and reselling clothing, before buying new togs, in collaboration with eBay.

According to the post:

"This program first asks customers to not buy something if they don't need it," said Yvon Chouinard, Patagonia's founder and owner, in a prepared statement. "If they do need it, we ask that they buy what will last a long time -- and to repair what breaks, reuse or resell whatever they don't wear any more. And, finally, recycle whatever's truly worn out."

Well ... do the words, "Holy cow!" mean anything to you? lol

The move entails risks for Patagonia, to be sure. It makes no money on the used transactions, though eBay earns standard commissions. The program has the potential to cannibalize sales of new gear, as buyers postpone purchases of new goods, or look for used alternatives.

Er, yeah, I'd say so ...

Yet with sales of $400 million in 2010, and likely to grow by 25% this year, according to the Wall Street Journal, Patagonia has leeway to try. It's a move that few listed companies could have entertained. Talking to the Wall Street Journal's Stu Wu, Chouinard acknowledged that, as a private company, Patagonia is uniquely situated to experiment. "[Chouinard] doesn't have any shareholders or other interests to please... 'I'm in business for different reasons,' he says. 'I've made all the money I could possibly need.'"

Ah. I think I'm beginning to see the light. :)

Does This Mean Joe Walsh Isn't Green?

2011-09-06T15:44:00.000-07:00

Last month, I ran across this most disturbing post about Gibson Guitars. I'll quote some of the post, to give you an idea what it said:

[In August], for the second time in two years, federal agents raided the facilities of Gibson Guitars, probably the most well-known guitar maker around the world. Although the two raids are the result of different cases, the accusations then and now are similar – violations of the Lacey Act, a law requiring that all wood products and plants imported into the U.S. come from legal sources.

On November 2009, federal agents seized guitars and fingerboard blanks that were suspected to be produced from illegally harvested Madagascan rosewood and ebony. Last week the agents seized several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. From a Reuters report the latest raid is related to a shipment of sawn ebony logs from India that was imported by Gibson illegally, violating the Lacey Act.

Serious allegations. The company isn't pleased, to say the least. The article goes on to state:

Gibson’s CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz was furious this time. According to Gibson’s website he believes the Justice Department is bullying Gibson without filing charges. He also promised in his statement that “we will fight aggressively to prove our innocence.” And the gloves, at least on Gibson’s side, are definitely off. Don’t believe me? Just look at the press release Gibson filed after the raid.

The headline says “Gov’t says wood is illegal if U.S. workers produce it”. The first sentence clarifies it a bit: “The Federal Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. has suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India.”

The combative tone continues all along the release with a clear dichotomy between Gibson, a company that “has a long history of supporting sustainable and responsible sources of wood” and the government who sends armed federal agents to execute search warrants, without any warning or communication of any kind, “causing lost productivity and sales.” It’s very clear from Gibson’s perspective who the good guys and the bad guys are in this story.

I almost stopped there, but there's more ...

It’s no wonder that right-wing online media warmly adopted Gibson’s side of the story. RedState, for example, suggested that “the Department of Justice is under fire for taking the bold step of sending armed agents into the factories of Gibson Guitar”, adding a photo showing a guitar player with a note on the guitar saying “the machine banned by white house.”

Another blogger, Andrew Lawton, even went further and claimed this raid is actually a result of political persecution because Gibson’s CEO is a donor to a couple of Republican politicians. To prove his point, Lawton shows how C.F. Martin, one of Gibson’s competitors, is using the exact same wood but is not raided because its CEO is a long-time democratic supporter. I can only assume Lawton has never attended one of C.F. Martin’s Wood Summits or talked to their vendors, but anyway it’s a nice theory.
These sorts of reactions were expected, but what is less expected is the silence coming from environmental organizations that are very passionate about these issues, such as Rainforest Action Network (RAN), Greenpeace, or Rainforest Alliance, which has been working with Gibson since 1996 and whose SmartWood program has issued FSC Chain-of-Custody certificates to three Gibson manufacturing facilities. How come they have nothing to say?

One of the main pierces of evidence Gibson brings to prove its case is the fact that although 21 months passed since the first raid in 2009, criminal charges have not been filed. At the same time, they add, “the Government still holds Gibson’s property”. Both facts are truth and indeed it is not clear why no charges have been filed so far. Nevertheless, this is not the whole story. According to Sound & Fair, Gibson filed a motion to overturn the US Fish and Wildlife Service charges, but the agency successfully overturned the motion.

Well, I could go on, but I think you get the drift. From what I've read, it sounds like Gibson is dealing with a complicated situation and better get its act together soon.

BTW, here's a list of musicians who play Gibson guitars. If Gibson turns out to be in the wrong, does this mean their music is no longer sustainable? :)

Teenager Builds Tiny House on Wheels

2011-09-02T20:40:00.000-07:00

Talk about your sustainable housing solutions. Sixteen-year-old Austin Hay of California has built his own portable house.

And, unlike some other types of so-called portable housing units I could name, this one will actually have walls, a kitchen, a bedroom, a bathroom, and all the comforts of a real home ... without the mortgage.

There's Bad News and Good News About Plastics

2011-08-27T15:20:00.000-07:00

The bad news concerns plastic shopping bags, in particular. According to the post Facing the Dirty Truth About Recyclable Plastics, the truth really hurts.

Along with the fact that plastic bags litter empty fields in places like India, where they simply lie around failing to biodegrade, the real dirty truth is that recyclable plastic bags aren't being recycled as much as they could or should be.

The reasons for this seem largely related to economics and the potential uses of recycled plastic.

But hold on! There's good news.

According to this post, things aren't quite as hopeless as all that.

Here's part of what the post said (and I quote):

Not only are beverage companies stepping up to improve bottle recycling, business innovators are looking for opportunities to make money from the ocean of discarded plastics that aren’t recycled. Components of the Ford Focus car, such as underbody shields, wheel arch liners and air cleaner assemblies, are created in part from old pop bottles and milk jugs. Not only does this re-direct plastic that can’t be recycled into more bottles, but it replaces car parts made of potentially non-recyclable materials.

Producer-led environmental innovation is also happening at even more promising stages of the plastics life cycle. For example, cleaning products: Replenish is marketing reusable cleaner bottles shipped without the 99% water that fills most cleaner bottles. Instead, a reservoir shoots pre-measured concentrate into the bottle for consumers to mix with their own tap water. Founder Jason Foster plans to license his design to other companies as well.

The tipping point on plastic bottles is also being carried along by cultural changes. The trend for smaller houses means less storage space and increased appreciation for smaller packaging. Washing machines with an Energy Star rating require HE (High Efficiency) detergent, which comes in smaller, sometimes non-plastic containers. A reverse vending machine would allow easy bottle returns and promises higher recycling compliance.

These innovations all require collaboration between citizens, government and producers. We’ve watched the auto industry lower their mileage and produce hybrids and electric vehicles. The beverage market, though further behind, is working seriously on its own problem – plastic. It’s nice to see all parties invested in bottled beverages — even producers — join in the solution.

So ... it's not all doom and gloom, is it? :)

10 Intriguing Myths About Sustainability

2011-08-19T19:15:00.000-07:00

These days the word sustainability gets bandied about so much, it's turned into one those buzz words that could mean just about anything or nothing.

That's one reason I found this post that listed 10 myths about sustainability so interesting. Because, first off, it actually tried to define the word. As follows (and I quote):

The word sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere (tenere, to hold; sus, up). Dictionaries provide more than ten meanings for sustain, the main ones being to “maintain”, “support”, or “endure”. However, since the 1980s the word sustainability has been used more in the sense of human sustainability on planet Earth resulting from the publication of Our Common Future, by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (also known as the Brundtland Commission after its Chair, Norwegian diplomat, Gro Harlem Brundtland). That report defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This has come to be accepted as the most widely quoted definition of sustainability and sustainable development.

In ecology, the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. Healthy ecosystems and environments provide vital goods and services to humans and other organisms. There are two major ways of reducing negative human impact and enhancing ecosystem services. One approach towards sustainability is environmental management; based largely on information gained from earth science, environmental science, and conservation biology. Another approach is management of consumption of resources, which is based largely on information gained from economics. Sustainability interfaces with economics through the social and ecological consequences of economic activity.

Ways of living more sustainably can take many forms from reorganizing living conditions (e.g., eco-villages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), reappraising economic sectors , or work practices (sustainable architecture), using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy, or new and affordable cost-effective practices) to make adjustments that conserve resources. Moving towards sustainability is a social challenge that entails, among other factors, international and national laws, urban planning and transport, local and individual lifestyles and ethical consumerism.

Nicely done, I'd say. All encompassing even.

Then ... the post goes on to list the 10 myths. Which include such stunning ideas as the notion that sustainable isn't the same as "green." OMG!

Thanks for the Bike Path! (Why the New Road?)

2011-08-02T12:31:00.000-07:00

So, for those who live in the Maryland suburbs outside DC, the awesome news according to this WJZ story is as follows (and I quote in italics):

There’s a new way to avoid tolls on the Intercounty Connector.

We could have avoided the whole thing by not building the road to begin with. What this article doesn't tell you is how much opposition there was to building this damn road at all. Now, instead of spending money on yet another f*cking road in this traffic-clogged area, they could have 1) put the money into building a better public transit system; 2) improve the existing roads and bridges (many of which are ready to crumble to bits); 3) help upgrade the Metro system, which really desperately needs the help; 4) anything else, except build another damn road.

WTOP-FM reports that a freshly paved biking and jogging path is now open between Needwood Road and Emory Lane in the Rockville-Derwood area.

The path is separated from the ICC by concrete dividers and freshly planted trees. It’s the first segment of what the Maryland State Highway Administration says will be more than 11 miles of bike paths built as part of the ICC project. The paths will make it easier to travel by bicycle from the Shady Grove Metro station to the Muirkirk MARC station in Beltsville.

Golly, that was nice of you to replace all those trees you tore down to put in that road no one wanted that we must pay to drive on. Thank you so much!

And I can just imagine how useful a bike path between a Metro station in Shady Grove and a train station in Beltsville will be. I'm sure people will clamor to connect from a train headed out of Beltsville by riding their bikes to Shady Grove and vice versa, since they're only -- what? -- 25 or so miles apart? Hmm ... these stations could have been connected by a light rail instead of a road, but hey, we got a bike path, right?

And somehow 11 miles of bike path will be enough to accomplish the job? Or more? A whole lot more, I guess? :)

The next segment of the ICC for drivers is expected to open later this year or early next year.

Oh, goody. More bike paths, right?

Hey, here's a thought. Save your money by not building the road and just widen the existing roads to create more bike paths. How about that?

And while we're at it, let's not forget to enforce parking laws so bikers can make full use of the roads unimpeded. (Awesome video via Grist)

Being Here Now

2011-07-28T16:08:00.000-07:00

A long (long) time ago, I saw a book titled BE HERE NOW. I knew what the book was about just from those words. Living in the moment was a concept that I just ... got.

I've never been a really competitive person. However, I've thrown my heart and soul into writing fiction and marketing my work, primarily through this blog.

Now, the world of ebook self-publishing has become an increasingly crowded and competitive one. Having said that, it has never been my goal to make a million dollars at this particular game. However, through hard work and luck I've been able to exceed my own expectations to an extent I'd never have thought possible.

However, my goal has always been to make a living writing the best fiction I possibly can. Period.

It's not important that I become super wealthy. And I most definitely don't want to be famous.

This article in Grist underscores much of what I've been thinking, about the need for me to cut back on my marketing and simply enjoy life while I can.

Plus there's the real need to deal with some health issues I've pushed through, i.e., ignored and hoped would go away.

I'll write more about that in my August Web site column called Sustainability. Check it out if you get a chance. :)

PS: Here's a video for your entertainment. Enjoy yourself! :-)

The Pros and Cons of Organic Food

2011-07-22T15:14:00.000-07:00

Not long ago, Scientific American published an article called Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming, which listed four (alleged) myths about that practice.

I say "alleged," because Grist has published an article called In Defense of Organic, in which it claims to debunk at least some of those alleged myths.

Boy, that's a lot of reading. And a whole lot of embedded links.

Good luck trying to figure out which one is the more accurate version. :)

PS: I'm glad I waited so long to post that Scientific American article now. lol

Sustainability Could Be As Close As Your Local Library

2011-07-17T12:12:00.000-07:00

There's been so much emphasis in the news and on various blogs about developing "green" energy sources and moving away from dirty ones like coal and petroleum, even though there are issues associated with those alternatives that haven't been completely ironed out and they may not be as "green" as we'd like to think they are, when all is said and done.

Having said that, I'd like to point out that there are other ways to live a more sustainable lifestyle. Cut back on your energy consumption. Period.

The Howard County, MD public library is loaning portable energy monitoring devices (called Kill A Watt devices) to cardholders in order to promote awareness of energy consumption, according to a recent article in the Columbia Flier.

I will quote an interesting part of the article:

One measure that can be particularly useful is reading how much energy an appliance can use even when it is switched off or not in use. These "vampire loads" can use a surprising amount of energy, even when an appliance is not in use. Video game consoles and remote-controlled devices are common culprits, according to Live Green Howard County, the county's environmental initiative.

Another part of the article talks about how TV sets are sold with the brightness levels set way up to look nice in the showroom. If you set the levels lower once you get them home, they look just fine, according to one source.

What else? The devices are worth $25. So they aren't incredibly expensive. However, I see these devices were donated to the library by the Sierra Club. My, wasn't that nice? Even so, they do seem to be incredibly useful. Maybe some other nice group can donate them to their local library. Who knows?

Or they could just buy them. Just like e-readers. That's another thing Howard County libraries loan out. And you'd know that if I could just find the damned article with a simple search. But I can't for some reason. So I've given you the link to the Flier. Feel free to look for it. And good luck! :)

PS: Speaking of energy drains, it sure takes a lot of energy to type a summation when you can't copy, paste and modify. And your hand is twisting the whole time and you can't stop it to save your life. And no one pays me a thing to write this sh*t, you know. :-D Awesome!!!

Nine Types of Greenwashing

2011-07-06T16:36:00.000-07:00

With all the claims of being "green" and "eco-friendly," not to mention "sustainable" being made these days, it's harder than ever to tell when you're being hornswaggled, as it were.

Which is why Tristan Roberts and Jennifer Atlee created this handy list they call The Nine Types of Greenwashing.

Take a look-see. They've covered the gamut, from "green by association" to "unproven claims" to "bait and switch" and -- horrors! -- "outright lying."

Imagine!

Only on Fox News

2011-06-30T16:13:00.000-07:00

Boy, I realize some people don't buy the idea of global warming completely, but even so ...

In this interview with Glen Beck, Rick Santorum not only claimed that global warming didn't exist, but recommended that oil drilling take place "everywhere."

"Everywhere" includes a lot of places.

Check out the video and bear witness.

Here's Santorum's really scientific position: "There is no such thing as global warming. It is, in my opinion, there are hundreds of factors that cause the Earth to warm and cool, and the trace gas -- of which human participation in this trace gas -- is ..."

And here's Beck's response: "This could seal the deal for me. Whatever, I got enough."

Talk about your blinding logic.

A Guy Who Sounds Discouraged

2011-06-21T16:33:00.000-07:00

Charles Secrett, who helped spearhead the environmental protection movement 40 years ago with Friends of Earth (FoE), wrote an article for the Guardian recently, in which he described the current state of the "green" movement as "out-of-touch, ineffective against the onslaught of industrialism, and deeply bureaucratic."

Secrett talks about a lot of things that brought the movement to life, such as social unrest and the role of activists.

It's interesting, because at one point, he says, "Then, as now, students were agitating, the economy stuttering and the government deeply unpopular. Serious scientific warnings of the global impact of environmental degradation penetrated the mainstream. People became aware that humanity, as well as nature, was under threat from trashing the planet."

He also speaks of the various tactics employed, such as street theatre, consumer boycotts, marches and rallies and so on. Impromptu and grass roots kind of stuff.

So, what's changed? How did it all go wrong?

Well, I'd say the answer lies somewhere in these paragraphs ...

It wasn't all plain sailing. In the early 1980s and 1990s recessions, the movement ran badly out of steam. Each time, green groups had to rethink and reorganise. And they bounced back stronger than before. The agenda swelled to cover every available issue under the sun, from climate change and rainforest protection to the equitable distribution of earth's resources and rampant consumerism. Staff numbers grew rapidly. Membership and funds soared. Management jobs and full-blown teams in finance, administration, fundraising, HR and communications became the norm. Salaries rose significantly and pensions plans began.

For the first time, working for FoE and Greenpeace became a permanent career move for many whose background lay outside campaigning and activism. Things were changing.

Recently, the momentum has again fizzled away. The government and the police use a raft of criminal justice and anti-terrorism laws to stifle legitimate public protest and prosecute activists. Corporations employ legions of PR firms to keep campaigners at bay, and support climate deniers and free market optimists to muddy the waters of public opinion.

And ...

Something much more powerfully proactive is required to persuade the majority to change course before it is too late – something that stirs up a social force to match (peacefully) the citizen revolutions overturning the established order across the Middle East. The movement has the resources to do so. But does it have the ideas and the will?

Worryingly, in every major green group, managers, administrators, communicators and fundraisers outnumber campaigners and researchers. Too many staff have become obsessed with the process of running an organisation. Interminable meetings, not action, are the order of most days. All too often, fundraisers and PR teams, not campaigners, call the shots.

Today's activists regard once radical organisations as part of the NGO establishment: out-of-touch, ineffective and bureaucratic. The wheel has turned full circle. It is time to rethink and reorganise again.

You know, I think he may be onto something. (via Kaj Embren).

Ten Other Reasons to Buy an Electric Car

2011-06-08T20:34:00.000-07:00

Well, it's a given that if you're a green-minded person that you'll want to buy a plug-in electric car. However, here's an article that lists 10 more reasons to buy an electric car. Along with the ones we already know about. Apparently.

After all, such a car reduces your carbon footprint, saves gas, lets you achieve "ZAP" (or zero air pollution -- ha ha!), denies excessive profits to the greedy petroleum business and takes you from Point A to Point B while allowing you to feel virtuous about it. And "gets you dates with eco-hipsters." *eye roll*

So what other reasons could you need to be persuaded to make such a purchase? Well, how about the reasonableness of the car's price?

Ah! Reason No. 1: Tesla is going to release an electric car you might actually be able to afford.

Now, how about that? So, how much are we talking ...?

Hmm ... something about a Tesla Roadster for 109 grand. Well, that's a bit pricey, if you ask me. Keep going ...

The all-electric Tesla Motors announced in late May that it will be selling some more common stock in order to finance the development of the Tesla Model X, an SUV-like electric vehicle that will broaden the company’s appeal among consumers and sell for a mere $50,000 ...

Uh, okay. I wouldn't buy an SUV for love or money and I'm not spending 50 grand on any vehicle, electric or otherwise. Thank you.

It's an interesting article, otherwise. Even a bit amusing. So don't let that part discourage you from reading the rest of it, okay? :)

My Kingdom for a Simple Bike Ride

2011-05-27T15:15:00.000-07:00

Okay, so Sarah Goodyear reports for Grist in this article about Lucette Gilbert, a sweet little old lady in her "very high 70s" who lives in New York City (of course), that said little old lady stands as proof that you're never too old to ride a freaking bike.

There's even a video of the lady riding her bike. How nice. Really!

I would be the last person to claim otherwise. However, perhaps it hadn't occurred to Sarah that a non-bicycle rider isn't always "one of those people who comes up with endless excuses about why you can't get your ass onto a bicycle and use it to go somewhere." In point of fact, Sarah might not be aware that you don't have to be old to suffer infirmity sufficient to make bike riding extremely difficult.

Perhaps it would be instructive for Sarah to watch these videos:

The trailer from the documentary Twisted.

A PSA about dystonia.

Okay, Sarah. Do you think these people are going to just hop on a bicycle and ride anywhere they want?

And here's the thing. These people are obviously disabled. What about folks whose disabilities aren't obvious? Would you believe I'm one of them?

I've had dystonia in my hand and foot for about six years. It's something most people don't notice, but I feel it all the time and it wears me down. And I can't grip with my left hand, anymore. And it's constantly clenching and twisting. Sometimes it hurts. But I keep going, anyway. I won't bore you with the details about my constantly clenching toes.

There are people with other disorders that can't be seen. Lupus, chronic pain syndrome, to name just a couple. Who are you to judge, Sarah? That's my question.

The other day, I rode my bicycle around the neighborhood. I was only out for an hour or so, but it felt good to know I could. But I felt sad, too, because it'll never be quite the same experience again.

But even though it hurt, and I won't be riding on a daily basis or much farther than my own neighborhood, at least I did it. Because I could and I believe in doing things if I can.

PS: Lucette Gilbert is one lucky lady. And if she'd like to trade places with a certain New York Times bestselling mystery author, tell her I'll do it in a heartbeat. :)

'Green' Cereal Packaging: It's Complicated

2011-05-16T15:31:00.000-07:00

Okay, so Malt-O-Meal (you know, that cereal that no one eats, but that's been around for years) has never changed its packaging. But the company that makes it says it's always been sustainable because the cereal comes in big bags, so that's green, right? Follow?

Well, the Malt-O-Meal people have been touting the benefits of buying its big-bag product on some Web site, while giving sh*t to companies that sell cereal in boxes, according to this article.

But just how "green" is this practice (or doing of the same thing in the same way) really?

To quote from the article:

At the top-most level, yes, putting cereal in just bags compared to bags and boxes has benefits: Not sourcing material from trees, and not using energy and fuel to produce and transport boxes.

But again: Is that green? And is Malt-O-Meal green as a result of this practice?

The answer, as near as I can tell, is a qualified "no." Or "I don't know." Because green or not, Malt-O-Meal is an example of a company that is adding to the already overwhelming cacophony of green stories, by touting the environmental benefits of their products and packaging, without having made a single change.

Semantics is just one of the issues I take with Malt-O-Meal's campaign. They company says it's "saved" 156 million pounds of paperboard and 1.1 billion BTUs of energy since 2001 by using just bags. To be more accurate, they avoided that packaging and energy: If they didn't switch away from boxes, they didn't save anything.

Well, okay. Are you finding fault with Malt-O-Meal for not wasting resources to begin with? I don't know ...

Anyhow, onward.

And those energy figures highlight another problem with Malt-O-Meal's announcement: a lack of specificity.

Nowhere does Malt-O-Meal say how much energy or fuel it uses and how many emissions it puts out from the production or shipping of its packaging, making it hard to discern the actual difference between their packaging and paperboard boxes. Then again, we don't know of any other cereal company that's put out such specific figures, but we also haven't seen other cereals make such bold claims about their packaging being better than others'.

Um ... okay, so no other cereal company has specific figures either. Basically, Malt-O-Meal is basing its argument on the large size of its bags. Period. I think we've got that sussed.

One thing Malt-O-Meal also doesn't say is that its bags use more plastic than cereal in boxes, since the bags are thicker and also have a resealable enclosure. That means more petroleum-based plastic. Now, I don't think that extra plastic would be enough to rival the impacts of paperboard boxes, but it's worth noting.

Make of that what you will.

The fact is, Malt-O-Meal has never used boxes. They are a discount brand. Boxes would increase their costs. So it seems disingenuous to twist that into a green act without more accurate facts and figures.

Um, ditto.

Interestingly, Malt-O-Meal does have a line of cereal called Mom's Best Naturals that comes in boxes. It appears, then, that they're saying their conventional, sugar- and corn syrup-fueled cereal is greener than its slightly more natural brand.

WTF????

And that leads to yet another quibble I take with Malt-O-Meal's Bag the Box campaign (as well as with other companies who pat themselves a bit too hard on their backs for packaging changes when their ingredients leave something to be desired): Green is about more than what's on the box or bag: What's inside counts just as much. And making cereals from conventional, pesticide- and oil-intensive corn, wheat, sugar and partially hydrogenated oils hardly counts as green or sustainable. But more important than what Malt-O-Meal puts in its bags is what it's sharing with potential customers, and the media. Until they publish more details about their environmental impacts, and set some goals around improving them, this is just a bag half-empty.

I think I'll stick with English muffins. Thank you.

Filthy Reusable Bags -- Revisited

2011-05-10T15:43:00.000-07:00

Yeah, here we go again. Way back when I started this blog, I put up a post called Paper, Plastic ... or Filthy Reusable Bag? I'd say the title is fairly self-explanatory, but feel free to read the post for more on that.

So now someone's come up with something even more mind boggling: Ten Commandments of Reusable Bag Use.

Okay, I see that headline and think, WTF???

I read the post. It's all the usual stuff. Long lines, inconvenience, dead ants, nasty things stuck in the corners and cracks of reusable bags, etc., etc.

Finally, I get down to the list. Just read it, okay? Now, really, how much of this is plain common sense and/or courtesy? Especially #10???? I mean, honestly!

I'll Drink to That

2011-05-04T17:18:00.000-07:00

Okay, so it turns out that Coca Cola isn't quite the green company it makes itself out to be, according to this article.

When you come right down to it, it's not such a hot idea to drink a lot of soda anyway. Even diet soda. Apparently.

But there's always good old water. But not bottled water, because that's not sustainable, is it?

Of course, tap water might not be so good for you, either. Depending on who you ask.

I don't know. Got milk? Perhaps not.

Going to Hell in an Electric Handbasket

2011-04-27T13:23:00.000-07:00

That's right. We're all going to be driving electric cars. That is if Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has anything to say about it. We should all be applauded for driving around in Chevy Volts. Assuming, of course, we don't get stuck in traffic jams like the ones we'll encounter in places like this.

Here's an unfortunate reality: you can drive any kind of vehicle you like, but if you're stuck in traffic, you're not going anywhere very fast. And that just sucks.

But, you ask, what about public transportation? Yeah, what about it? And not only that, but check this out. (Via The Anti DC.) Who also has her say about ~~retarded~~ less than ideal bike sharing arrangements in DC.

If only things were so simple ...

Oh, Frack! It's Earth Day and What Can I Say?

2011-04-22T14:55:00.000-07:00

I'll start by noting that Grist has an article that encourages us to quit nit-picking over distinctions between cities and suburbs when it comes to issues like sustainability. Even though they've taken the opposite position before. And I've posted about that here.

So ... what else?

The one-year anniversary of the BP oil spill was a couple of days ago, and a natural gas well had a fracking blowout in Pennsylvania. Not exactly the most festive sort of event to lead up to Earth Day, huh?

But wait! This could be good news. Consumers are cutting back on spending and "green" products are losing their allure, according to this article.

So why is that a good thing, you might ask? Consumerism is bad, right? And if consumers buy fewer "green" products, companies won't engage in as much greenwashing, right? :)

One last note: this comes via blogger Marissa Payne. Hello, technology! Regarding vehicle fuel efficiency. You're going the wrong way!

Nuclear Power: Are These The Only Options?

2011-04-17T16:45:00.000-07:00

Okay, so we know that nuclear power has its good points and its bad ones. Now, some of its bad ones can be pretty bad, as we know from previous experience with places like Chernobyl and the current situation in Fukushima.

However, despite some of the obvious downsides of nuclear power, this article provides "three recommendations to help society make more informed cost-benefit decisions" about using it.

To wit (and quoting the article):

"1. Eliminate government subsidies for nuclear power, which reduce the private cost of capital for new reactors while shifting the long-term costs -- and risks -- from investors to the public.

"2. Require nuclear plant owners to buy full-coverage insurance. That would mean repealing the Price-Anderson Act, which limits liability for nuclear accidents to $12.6 billion. That's not nearly enough -- consider that the damage and cleanup estimates of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill are $34 billion to $670 billion, and the Fukushima disaster could far exceed those costs.

"3. Require plant owners to also maintain an assurance bond adequate to cover decommissioning and waste disposal costs. This approach is often used for mining operations to ensure that the mines are properly reclaimed. In most countries, there are some funds set aside for nuclear plant decommissioning and waste disposal, but it typically isn't nearly enough to cover the real costs."

Wow, regarding #2, do you suppose Lloyd's of London would even spare these a glance?

With respect to #3, the last sentence in that paragraph seems to suggest this is a less than perfect solution.

And as for #1, can you say 'special interests'? Can you say 'lobbyists'?

Green Energy: What's the Answer?

2011-04-11T15:29:00.000-07:00

I pose the question because every time I turn around there seems to be one problem or another with whatever energy source is being proposed as an alternative to dirty energy generation options like trash incineration (yuck!) or coal plants (more yuck!).

For instance, just how green are those solar panels, anyway?

And if that question gives you deja vu, well, it should.

So what about wind power? Yeah, what about it?

PS: Surely mention must be made of the recent attempt to shut down the federal government by, among other things, debating the elimination of climate pollution rules. This article provides a short list of clean energy myths and rejoinders for each. And a nice YouTube video, to boot.

Just One Lawn ...

2011-04-06T16:54:00.000-07:00

Being that I live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed area, I tend to pay attention to news about its health, as well as opinions like this one. Now, we know that nitrogen and phosphorus are two of the biggest problems affecting the bay. We also know that farms, waste-water treatment plants and home septic systems are sources of runoff that contain these substances.

While these three sources have been targeted as major polluters to the bay, another more diverse source has been, shall we say, overlooked. One word: lawns.

While fertilizers and pesticides applied to lawns haven't exactly been ignored, they haven't been the focus of attention, either.

And while farms and waste-water treatment plants are under the gun to clean up their act, no such pressure has been applied to the turf industry.

To quote the article: "What's a little grass, one might ask? According to a recent Washington Post story, the EMRPC reports that, 'Grassy turf, not farmland, is the most dominant crop in the bay watershed. There were almost 1.3 million acres of planted turf in Maryland in 2009, compared with 1.3 million acres of all other crops.'"

Well, then!

The article further states:

"What can Harry and Harriet Homeowner do? First go [to] the Maryland Department of the Environment website. There you will find some good ways to help address this problem, such as buying lawn fertilizer that contains little or no phosphorus, and sweeping back into the grass any fertilizer that gets deposited on sidewalks or driveways.

"If the bay is ever to be restored to health, every person and every activity that is polluting it must be part of the solution. Pollution from turf grass fertilizers is a big issue, and one that anyone who grows grass can help solve.

"That's a lot of people who, together, can make a big difference."

It's not just one lawn, okay, people?

Six Myths About Sustainable Printing and Paper

2011-04-01T15:25:00.000-07:00

As the headline indicates, this post from the blog Paper or Plastic lists six myths about sustainable printing and paper, then proceeds to debunk them.

There's really not much more to say about it. And, as much as I like the colorful stripe at the top of the page, I do wish whoever created this blog had come up with a slightly more creative design. And taken a few more pains to proofread the content. (See the last sentence under Myth #5.)

*shakes head* Sorry. Just sayin'.

Earth Hour is Upon Us!

2011-03-26T10:20:00.000-07:00

Today, massive power outages are predicted around the world. However, it won't be the fall out from a catastrophe or a terrorist plot.

It will be the (fifth) annual orchestrated show of support for energy conservation and against climate change known as Earth Hour. From 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. (local time), major cities around the globe will turn out their lights. Furthermore, according to this article, the organizers behind the event are urging people to turn off lights and other nonessential appliances in a symbolic show of support.

Harmless fun? I suppose. Of course, there's always a contrary opinion on such matters.

For instance, this D.C.-based nonprofit libertarian think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which contends that Earth Hour sends the wrong message.

To wit (and quoting the article):

The organization is holding its own event during Earth Hour 2011—Human Achievement Hour 2011—to celebrate human inventions and innovations that "make today the best time to be alive." CEI's suggested Human Achievement Hour activities include taking a hot shower, watching TV, or phoning friends.

"They want people to turn off all of their lights for one hour on a Saturday night in spring as a symbol of a vote for action on climate change," said Michelle Minton, CEI's director of insurance studies.

"We believe that a vote has to have a choice, so Human Achievement Hour is the alternative, where people think good things about technology as a way to reach solutions to the problems of today and tomorrow."

Human Achievement Hour—including a party at CEI's offices that will stream live on CEI.org—isn't meant to oppose individuals who want to save energy, Minton explained.

But CEI takes issue with those who would, according to Minton, use the environmental movement to encourage governments to force people to conserve.

"We believe that freedom is what's necessary for individuals to come up with improved technologies not only in the West—where we can just flip the switch back on whenever we want—but also in the developing world," Minton said.

"In some places it's Earth Hour every hour of every day."

Not an entirely unreasonable point.

Nuclear Power, Renewable Energy Choices, Japan and All That

2011-03-20T19:41:00.000-07:00

Yeah, hi. Sorry it's been so long. This is going to be short. What with all the awful events transpiring in Japan, this seemed like an opportune time to bring up this post about how nuclear power is a double edged sword. Really.

So, isn't it interesting that according to this article in Grist, wind power in Japan stepped up and saved the day.

AND, isn't it even MORE interesting that the EU climate chief says wind power is cheaper than nuclear. Hmm ...

Thanks. And apologies. Last week was interesting for this blogger. I got good news (see the last title listed). Does the author's name look familiar? ;)

41 Reasons to Plant a Tree for Your Book

2011-03-12T13:51:00.000-08:00

To celebrate the 41st anniversary of Earth Day, Eco-Libris is starting a campaign tomorrow. For 41 days (from March 13 through April 22), you (yes, you out there, reading this blog!) can submit a reason why you think planting a tree for your books is a good idea. And maybe get it listed on Eco-Libris' site. Isn't that cool? I thought so.

And you can participate, by clicking on the link right here. Be sure to scroll down and check out the prizes, too. Nice!

One other thing. I don't often get to tie this blog together with my life as an author and/or a reader. But this case is an exception. :)

Two Good Questions

2011-03-06T15:15:00.000-08:00

Why does energy efficiency's promise remain unfulfilled? It's a perfectly good question posed in The Green Economy Post. Canadian steel fabricating company VeriForm Inc. cut its costs by installing more efficient lighting and automated heating systems, as well as finding ways to run its saws and other tools more efficiently. So how come other companies aren't jumping on the energy efficiency bandwagon?

Well, if you look a little further down in the article, there's a quote from someone with the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) that sort of explains it.

I will quote the relevant section here (in italics):

R. Neal Elliott, director of research at ACEEE, says that one clear message that has emerged from his group’s 30 years of efforts to promote efficiency is that “people do not always make decisions based on what makes economic sense. The myth of the rational consumer is clearly that: a myth.”

As Elliott himself acknowledged, there are ways to explain at least some of what looks like economic irrationality. The McKinsey report highlighted several of these.

Start with sheer consumer ignorance about what savings efficiencies can achieve, or skepticism that projected savings will materialize, or simply that people have other things on their minds. Sometimes it’s a sort of false miserliness, a reluctance to invest money up front, even if the money is an investment that will quickly be paid back. Of course, even a consumer or business well aware of cost savings might simply not have enough cash or credit to make an up-front investment.

Hi. Me again. I'm not sure which is scarier. The ignorance itself or the fact that this hapless group has tirelessly promoted the energy efficiency cause for 30 years only to run into it, time and time again. Well ... onto the second question ...

What has the DoE (Department of Energy) done lately? I mean, seriously. We have a problem. And what do these people get paid to do? Really. (Hat tip to BarryonEnergy.)

Does Green Equal Unclean?

2011-02-28T16:15:00.000-08:00

This question occurred to me as I read this article about New York becoming the first state in the nation to enforce laws requiring the makers of household cleaners to reveal their products' specific chemical ingredients. (*deep breath*)

I guess the idea is that by having manufacturers reveal what their products are made of, they will make them with less toxic ingredients. Thus, the product will end up being more green. Unfortunately, this can lead to other problems. Such as what? Well, for instance ... and quoting the article ...

"Most consumers don't realize that the majority of mainstream household and consumer products with a green label do nothing more than dilute the toxic chemicals that have been in products for years, and some just add a botanical fragrance like lavender, bergamot or citrus. Although this may result in slightly less toxic and slightly more environmentally friendly formulations, efficacy is often compromised. The germs live on!"

So ... oops! Problem not really solved. In fact, new problem created. Maybe. Or is it just more of our modern obsession with extreme cleanliness? The article goes on to discuss the difference between sanitizers and disinfectants. This is a distinction with which I'm pretty familiar, having once worked as an attorney with EPA's Office of General Counsel, Pesticides and Toxics Division.

However, as a human being, I still believe in what my grandma taught me years ago. She said, "We all eat a peck of dirt before we die."

China's Electric Car Production vs. the US: Fair Comparison?

2011-02-22T15:41:00.000-08:00

Wow! Check the headline on this article from Grist: China to blow the doors off Obama's namby-pamby electric car program. (If you read the URL, you'll see the article originally described the program as "candy ass" instead of "namby-pamby" -- interesting substitution!)

So, you think they've got an opinion about U.S. plans to have 1 million electric vehicles total on the road by 2015 as opposed to China's plans to build 1 million electric cars per year by then?

Yeah, okay. Let's stop and think about this a second. First, isn't China a much bigger country with more people and a completely different economy, as well as a completely different political system? Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of these factors may affect their ability to produce 1 million of anything per year versus our ability to do so. And let's not even get into matters such as differences in our legal systems and various different federal and local regulations as pertain to industry and business and environment and permitting and what-not and my brain hurts thinking about it, so skip it. Thank you!

Not that I'm making excuses for us or anything, but ... we are different from China. Really!

And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Check out some of the comments. A few of them are cogent. But, boys, please! Play nicely, okay? Jeez! No need for ad hominem arguments or irrelevant grammatical corrections.

Fuelish Decisions

2011-02-17T15:14:00.000-08:00

Let's face it, folks. As awful as this is going to sound, we actually want gas prices to go up. Yeah, I know. It sucks, but there you have it. The horrible truth.

According to the article, when it comes to oil "[i]t's not that we're running out, say the experts, it's just that we are going to pay dearly to continue to mainline the fuel on which our entire civilization is uniquely dependent."

Furthermore, "in 2008, it took the largest economic crash since the Great Depression to bring gasoline prices down, and even then, they didn't reach the lows seen in 2002. That's because our capacity to extract oil, and the developing world's growing demand for it, put a floor on how cheap the stuff could get.

"In a post-peak world -- ... the usually-conservative International Energy Agency ... pegs the peak in crude oil at 2006 -- the price of oil tracks the performance of the world economy. When production is flat or declining, the more we want to use, the more we'll pay, period. (Speculative trading is inevitably a factor in world oil prices, but it's mostly noise around the overall trend.)"

So, in short, we want the price of gas to go up, because we really DON'T want the economy to come tumbling down all around us like the proverbial house of cards. Especially on a worldwide scale or anything, right? Right?

Oh, and if you were looking to ethanol as an alternative, I'm sorry. Apparently, it's too corny for words.

Up Yurts

2011-02-11T21:30:00.000-08:00

Okay, so even though high density development is supposed to be the more sustainable land use alternative, now someone is saying that the "eco-friendly, alternative-powered, and 100 percent recyclable" choice of dwelling is something called a yurt.

You see, the yurt "is a small, sustainable prefab that can be packed up and shipped anywhere in the world you want to go, because that's really effin' green." So that's awesome, right? Well ...

Even though this article about yurts is obviously quite tongue-in-cheek, it fails to point out at least one obvious problem.

Shipping. How do you ship this big old thing, anyhow? UPS? And how high are the carbon emissions created by the shipping?

And yes, the article does poke fun at the lack of furniture. And the notion of living on display. No closets. Do you even see a bathroom?

I'm really sure this is going to be the mobile home of the future. Just pay exorbitant shipping fees to send it to wherever then hook yourself up to whatever power source is available, hopefully without electrocuting yourself, trespassing or whatever horrible mishap might occur where large power sources and real estate are involved. Don't forget to bring cables to suspend yourself scenically among sturdy trees.

The bathroom? A bucket and a hanging blanket should do just fine. Yeah, right ...

Well, Excuse Me for Living in the Suburbs

2011-02-07T16:02:00.000-08:00

Okay, I know that higher density development is better from both a land development and environmental impact perspective. This article rubs my nose it, er, that is to say, goes to great pains to point that out.

And, no, I don't particularly want to live in a log cabin like Thoreau or a tepee or an earthbag hut (hmm ...). Nor did I ask the people who designed my suburban neighborhood to make it as they did. I didn't request the sprawling development. I don't support the building of unnecessary roads. And I would like to see more and better public transportation options. As well as bike lanes and pedestrian-friendly streets, etc.

The sprawl and other bad stuff is being done without my permission. And without the consent of others who share my views who also happen to live in the suburbs.

And while I realize that Manhattan may be (in your words) "one of the greenest places in America," I simply don't have the money to live there.

When it comes to urban living, in general, money helps. A lot.

And then there's the fact that if I moved into town (in my case), I'd have to deal with the District of Columbia government. But let's not go there, please. I will leave that to others.

Is Telecommuting Really Unworkable?

2011-01-31T16:02:00.000-08:00

So this blogger Jim Adams, a Boston real estate broker and consultant, who writes for Boston area newspapers, as well as the blog Boston by Square Foot in The Fullest claims that telecommuting just doesn't work. Period.

Okay, sometimes it does. Apparently, according to Adams, "jobs that have specific instruction and little deviation from the norm can be done in your home. They can also be done in India or Brazil. But you just can't do much when the unexpected happens. The value of the American worker will be increasingly based on his or her ability to react to and deal with the unexpected and unpredictable world of global business. That's tough to do in your jammies."

After citing stats from the Census Bureau and informing us that an iPhone is in fact a phone, Adams then goes on to talk about the three components of unpredictability that make working from home so infeasible.

One is the unexpected demand for services. Two is the unexpected need for supplies or connections to provide the service. Three is the endless series and cycles of the unexpected meeting whether that be during a walk through the city, at a popular lunch spot, or while attending a seminar or lecture.

Okay, first of all, doesn't some of this depend on what you do? I work at home as a writer. And the unexpected need for services does arise. And guess what? I'm able to handle it. And if I were telecommuting, I could also handle it just fine.

I'm not bound by geographic limitation. I can do business with anyone who has an Internet connection.

Furthermore, I don't own an iPhone, nor do I want one.

And I do go out now and then, to seminars and lectures. I've even been known to give them. Occasionally.

I suspect if you were to do a survey of freelance workers and consultants (like yourself, Mr. Adams?), you'd get a similar response.

Finally, I do not now nor have I ever worked in my pajamas.

Study Finds BioPlastics Not Greener Than Petro Products--Say What???

2011-01-28T21:14:00.000-08:00

When I saw this headline BioPlastics Are Not Greener Than Petro Based Product, Study Says, you know I had to read the post. And it's not just hype.

A team of researchers (including, oddly enough, an undergrad English major) at the University of Pittsburgh did a study that examined 12 different products: 7 petroleum based polymers, 4 bio-polymers and one hybrid in both pre-production and finished forms. The study didn't analyze the products during the use or disposal stage.

After considering a boatload of factors, the plastics ended up dealing a "crushing blow to the biopolymer industry" for reasons you can read for yourself. Ouch.

Ah, but wait! Remember that bit I mentioned about use and disposal? The part they didn't take into consideration in the study?

Bruce Dale, a professor of chemical engineering at Michigan State University, criticized them for this oversight. It meant their, well, life-cycle analysis wasn't really complete, was it? Hardly cradle-to-grave, I'd say.

There's also a big difference between various types of plastic (in this case, PHA vs. PLA) and the comparing the two is a bit of an apples and oranges proposition. Apparently.

Not ONLY that, but the team compared resins, not products.

So ... who won? Would you believe I'm still not sure?

Asking the Tough Questions

2011-01-19T16:12:00.000-08:00

I was scanning the headlines on LinkedIn and came across this one: Am I a Green Hypocrite?

Wow. Talk about asking a tough question. So many of us aspire to be green, but don't do all we could to achieve that goal. I know I don't. I'm as guilty as anyone.

For instance, like Bob the Green Civil Engineer, who wrote the post, neither my husband nor I drive a hybrid or an electric vehicle. Does that make us hypocrites? Well, not necessarily. Neither of us drives a lot either. So, I guess it balances out. Maybe.

Or the use of CFLs. We use a lot of them. But not CFLs exclusively. We still have a couple of old-style fluorescents. Yeah, really.

And do all the negatives get balanced out by the fact that we have no kids? Maybe. I guess.

In any case, I'm no one to sit in judgment of anyone's choices on these matters. So, Bob, your point that you can't do everything doesn't sound like a cop out or excuse to me. At all.

And I'm following your blog now. Why? Because you had the guts to raise the question and answer it honestly. :)

Wind Power: Promise and Reality

2011-01-14T16:27:00.000-08:00

Looks like I'm not the only blogger taking a slightly jaundiced view of things pertaining to sustainability issues. To wit, I give you EnviroPolitics Blog and this post about wind power.

For it seems that while Europe and China have been preparing to set up wind power generators, the U.S. hasn't -- at all.

However, as the post indicates, change may be on the horizon. It seems (quoting the post which quotes Governing Magazine) New Jersey is "leading the pack of wind-energy hopefuls, noting that the state recently approved 'one of the most aggressive pieces of offshore legislation in the country: a $100 million tax credit for offshore wind developers and supply chain manufacturers.'"

So, as the post goes on to ask, what's the hold up?

In a word: politics. Well, duh. How can you get anything done when agendas change every two years?

Well, it's nice to know I'm not the only cynic. In any case, here's some hopeful news from Maryland. I just hope they're not just blowing smoke up our rears.

An Ebook Launch for a New Mystery and a Cause

2011-01-11T15:34:00.000-08:00

As those of you who follow this blog may know, along with blogging about environmental matters, I’m a mystery novelist with a new ebook release titled LEAST WANTED. (Just click on the link to read about the book.) I also happen to have dystonia (please click on the link to read another post about dystonia), the third most common movement disorder.

On Wednesday, Jan. 12—as in, tomorrow!—I’ll be holding an ebook launch for LEAST WANTED. What I’m doing is structuring the launch so as to make a donation to the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation based on where the book ends up ranking in the Amazon Paid Kindle Store at the end of the day.

Here's how it'll work. If, by the end of the launch date, LEAST WANTED:

Hits the Top 300 in Amazon’s Paid Kindle, I’ll donate $100; or

Hits the Top 200 in Amazon’s Paid Kindle, I’ll donate $250; or

Hits the Top 100 in Amazon’s Paid Kindle, I’ll donate $500; or

If we should get so lucky …

Hits #1 in Amazon’s Paid Kindle, I’ll donate $1,000.

So, tomorrow—Wednesday, Jan. 12—please help me promote my book (it is a book promotion, yes? :) ) and support a worthy cause and download a copy of LEAST WANTED from Amazon for the very, very low price of 99 cents (more than a bargain, I’d say).

That is all. Thank you!

Building a Solar Energy Plant (Sort Of)

2011-01-06T19:46:00.000-08:00

Efforts are underway to spend $500,000 to build Michigan's Traverse City Light and Power a solar energy generation system, according to this post.

Unfortunately, while the price is right, the expected return is not so much.

As the post notes:

"The system, which is to include up to 120 solar panels, will generate a measly half-percent of Light and Power's overall energy needs.

"That's hardly worth the effort and it certainly isn't cost effective. In fact, the utility plans to reinstate its old 'green-rate' surcharge on electric bills, which is how Light and Power helped subsidize its wind turbine generator along M-72 west of Traverse City, to help underwrite the solar project.

"While the turbine was an important step toward renewable, no-impact power generation — it was the first public utility-owned and operated turbine in the state — its power production was, and still is, minimal.

"The 'green rate' helped offset the cost of building and maintaining the turbine.

"It could be kindly said the project fell into the 'it's the thought that counts' category."

In a word -- oops.

So given the fact that Michigan state law requires utilities to get at least 10 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020, what should they do?

Well, there's always wind power, and Lake Michigan is a source of powerful and consistent winds. However, harnessing those winds for energy may be tricky if people oppose building offshore windmills.

Well, I suggest they think about it. Because it's true that Michigan isn't exactly "prime solar territory," to quote the post.

Resolve to Make the New Year Greener -- and More Upbeat!

2011-01-02T19:27:00.000-08:00

I thought I'd start the new year off with on a bit of a positive note with a post on green resolutions -- three of them (not very many, but it's a start, right?).

Not only that, but could this please be the year that the media focuses just a little more on what's going right with the environment and less on the doom and gloom? That's the question posed in this post by Elizah Leigh.

Okay, so we've suffered through that terrible oil spill, failure to pass adequate climate change legislation, continuing to blast the tops off mountains and God knows what all else. Just because there've been a few setbacks and difficulties that doesn't mean the world is ending, okay?

So, I say we all keep on keeping on, and the media people should focus on reportage of not only problems, but actual progress and the stuff that's going right. Wouldn't that be nice?

Besides, isn't the bad stuff old news by now?

Global Energy Use Myths: Food for Thought

2010-12-27T16:22:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting blog post on The Sustainable Scribe about energy use and carbon emissions from different countries. Seems we're pointing the finger at China and India, putting the blame on them for global warming emissions, when the U.S. and Australia are leading offenders per capita when it comes to carbon dioxide releases.

The post goes through a number of statistics and while it seems that the U.S. is the greater offender from a per capita standpoint, China still has the larger population which creates its own problems.

Even so, China is making the largest investment in clean energy of any nation in the world (or so says this post), a factor that should weigh in its favor.

Read the post. It'll give you plenty to chew on.

A Great Green Holiday Round-Up

2010-12-23T15:30:00.000-08:00

Here for your holiday reading pleasure is a round-up of eco-related links pertinent to the season.

First, a post about eco-friendly ornaments (or working toward greener glassblowing).

Plus a couple of videos from Eco-Libris about how to celebrate a green Christmas and what to do with your Christmas cards afterward (other than just recycling them, of course).

Also, an interesting post from The Green Civil Engineer (isn't the name awesome?) about how Santa Claus runs a sustainable operation. Very cool!

In addition, here's a list of 15 ways you can make the new year more eco-friendly.

Finally, I'm throwing this in, just in case you wondered.

Happy holidays!

The Christmas Tree Debate: Real vs. Artificial - Part 2

2010-12-21T18:53:00.000-08:00

As I previously wrote, real Christmas trees are probably the "greener" choice as compared with artificial trees. However, according to this New York Times article, consumers tend to perceive fake Christmas trees as being more eco-friendly.

According to one shopper, "I'm very environmentally conscious. I'll keep it for 10 years, and that's 10 trees that won't be cut down."

The problem with that logic, of course, is that Christmas trees are raised on farms and harvested intentionally. Not cutting them down is not the same as preserving old growth forest.

Besides the carbon emissions associated with using a real tree are about one-third of those caused by using an artificial tree, according to an "independent study" by a firm called Ellipsos.

The makers of fake trees have another perspective, of course. One manufacturer claims that buying an artificial tree and using it at least five years is absolutely green. Further, he says people who buy real trees use more energy and pollute more through car travel than they would by buying a fake tree from China.

Not so, according to the American Christmas Tree Association (you knew there had to be one, right?). They say it takes closer to 10 years of use for a fake tree to compare favorably with a real one from an environmental standpoint.

Finally, there's the matter of disposal. Fake trees end up in landfills. Real ones can be recycled and composted.

Perhaps we're no closer to knowing the real answer. However, here are some more alternatives to buying traditional Christmas trees of whatever type.

Dishes: Hand Washing or Machine Washing?

2010-12-18T20:23:00.000-08:00

Okay, here's the problem. Washing dishes by hand actually wastes resources by using more water than dishwashers. However, dishwasher detergent without phosphates (the greener variety) doesn't clean well enough the first time to meet most people's standards of cleanliness. Ergo, they repeat the wash cycles until the dishes are clean. Using more water, in the process.

It's kind of a vicious circle set up by law essentially, because 17 states have banned phosphates in detergent. Good intentions that have gone awry, unfortunately.

While this article on the issue doesn't purport to have an answer, I think it at least acknowledges the problem.

So which would you choose? Dishpan hands or slightly dirty dishes?

Goodness! Look What the Feds Are Up To!

2010-12-13T18:26:00.000-08:00

Today's headlines from Grist had two articles about federal agencies that were each kind of stunning in their own way.

First, this one about the first report the Food and Drug Administration has issued concerning the amount of antibiotic use in the livestock industry. Turns out to be a sh*tload (paraphrasing a public health reporter).

Even the 29 million pound amount reported for 2009 is considered low. One group has estimated it to be closer to 50 million pounds. Hoo boy! This would mean that factory animal farms use an amazing 60 percent of U.S. antibiotics. Such use of antibiotics is thought to be leading to outbreaks of disease.

Mind you, antibiotic use isn't strictly for therapeutic purposes. It's also used to enhance livestock growth and keep them from catching diseases due to close confinement.

But that's not all. According to this article, it turns out the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allowed a bee-toxic pesticide to be approved despite the warnings of its own scientists. Oops!

According to the article:

"An internal EPA memo released Wednesday [Dec. 8] confirms that the very agency charged with protecting the environment is ignoring the warnings of its own scientists about clothianidin, a pesticide from which Bayer racked up €183 million (about $262 million) in sales in 2009."

Check out both articles. Tom Philpott has really been working it--investigative journalism-wise.

The Christmas Tree Debate: Real vs. Artificial

2010-12-08T20:54:00.000-08:00

With the coming of the Christmas holiday, it's well worth contemplating whether a natural or artificial Christmas tree is the more eco-friendly alternative.

Thus, I'd recommend reading this well written article on the subject. It examines both options in a fair amount of detail.

Among other things, the article notes that even though buying a reusable tree may seem to preserve trees (and appear more "green," in that sense), that's really not the only deciding factor. There are the matters of 1) what the tree is made of; 2) how it's creation affects the environment; and 3) how it ends up being disposed.

In fact, artificial trees are made with "polyvinyl chloride (or PVC), which is a petroleum-derived plastic. The raw material for fake Christmas trees is both non-renewable and polluting. Furthermore, PVC production results in the unhealthy emission of a number of carcinogens, such as dioxin, ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride."

Not only that, but in order to make the PVC needles more malleable, artificial tree makers use lead and other additives that have been linked to liver, kidney, neurological and reproductive system damage (at least in animal studies). In fact, a whole lot of artificial trees come from China (uh oh). In fact, if a tree is suspected to contain lead, parents are warned not to let their kids touch them. Or immediately have them wash their hands, if they do. Oh, and by the way, look out for the shower of lead-laced dust that may fall off it. My, how merry.

Okay, not so good. Even so, the real Christmas tree industry isn't entirely "green" either. Along with watering, there's chemical and pesticide use to consider. Plus trucking the trees into communities after the harvest. However, on the bright side, the distances tend to be short, because the trees need to be kept as fresh as possible. (China, on the other hand, is not exactly around the corner.)

Finally, on disposal, an artificial tree obviously isn't biodegradable. If you stick it in a landfill, it'll just sit there. If you burn it, it'll break down into dioxins and other carcinogens. Nasty!

On the other hand, real trees can be recycled. The branches can be converted to mulch, which decomposes and adds nutrients to the ground.

So it would appear this article comes down on the side of real trees.

And, if you have any lingering doubt, you can always opt for Norfolk pine houseplants and other options.

Renewable Energy and Variability

2010-12-04T14:52:00.000-08:00

Renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, does have variability issues. No one's denying that. The question is what problems do they present? And what should we do about them?

As this article points out, one thing we shouldn't do is ignore them. The variability argument can too easily be spun to support politically-motivated opposition to alternative energy options.

The article goes into an impressive amount of detail about how those issues could be managed through evolving energy-producing infrastructure and better weather prediction, among other things.

In other words, none of these technologies are developed in a vacuum.

Besides, Seattle, WA, and Oslo, Norway, aren't the first places I would've picked as solar powerhouses, either.

Sustainable Palm Oil: A Test Case for 'Green' Consumerism

2010-12-01T13:30:00.000-08:00

According to this article, palm oil has overtaken soya as the world's number one source of vegetable oil. Demand for palm oil has doubled in the last decade because of its health benefits (it has no trans fats) and the fruit of the palm produces more oil per hectare than rival products like soya and sunflower. However, there is a catch.

Palm oil trees are usually grown on former rainforest land. Recent demand has led to habitat destruction. And while bad PR on these ill effects have led to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, a coalition with the goal of launching a trademarked logo for food and cosmetic products containing sustainable palm oil, will it be enough to stop the destruction?

The article goes on to ask all sorts of interesting questions. For instance, questions raised in response to a statement by Unilever's president, who said the logo would show that the product "does not contribute to the sustained destruction of valuable tropical forests or damage the interests of people in the regions where the palms are grown."

Well, that's nice, but (as the article points out) what is "sustained destruction"? Is "unsustained destruction" okay? And who gets to determine "the interests of people in the regions" (whatever those interests might be)?

The bottom line, I think, is whether this is just another example of greenwashing. Is "sustainable palm oil" (as the headline suggests) just a "fig leaf," rather than a real solution.

The article provides plenty of food for thought. (No pun intended.)

As noted in conclusion:

"The stakes are immensely high. They are high for the rainforests of Southeast Asia and Africa, which could face wipeout unless the palm oil juggernaut is stopped. But they are also high for consumer environmentalism. If palm oil can be tamed, then so can other global commodities grown at great environmental expense — like cotton, soya, cocoa and the many food crops now being co-opted for biofuels. And if they can be tamed, then why not coal and oil?

"If globalization can make the consumer king, then maybe consumers can accomplish what politicians have failed to do."

Well, there's a hopeful thought.

Which E-Reader is the 'Greenest'?

2010-11-27T13:55:00.000-08:00

I've been awaiting this post comparing the relative "greenness" (if that is a word) with great anticipation ever since I posted about whether an e-reader is a "green" gift to begin with.

The comparison was made by Eco-Libris based on points assigned according to adherence to 11 criteria. A link to the full comparison can be found within the post. However, the bottom line is that Kindle and Sony tied for first with four points, followed by Kobo with three and Nook taking up the rear with two points.

One caveat: there's insufficient data to make a completely informed decision on this. Even so, based on what we know, it appears that Kindle is probably the best (at least, according to Eco-Libris).

Imagine my relief as a Kindle user. Yay.

Coal vs. Solar: Which Uses More Land?

2010-11-23T15:43:00.000-08:00

According to this recent article in Grist, "One of the most commonly accepted bits of conventional wisdom about energy is the notion that fossil fuels like coal are 'concentrated' and renewable sources are 'diffuse.'" What this is getting at is the notion that energy sources like solar take up too much space, while fossil fuels like coal take up far less.

According to the article, the idea that coal uses less land than solar power makes sense if you merely look at the sizes of both plants.

To wit: "California's proposed Blythe plant will require a whopping 7,000 acres of Mohave Desert in order to deliver 2,100 GWh per year. The area of a coal plant producing the same output will typically be one square mile (640 acres) or less."

However, as is pointed out, is this a fair and complete comparison? The answer would seem to be no.

It fails to take into account not only the amount of land being mined for coal, but land being indirectly affected by said mining. These affects can range from cracked roads to disappearing streams and ponds.

And while data on such land usage and affects is incomplete to say the least, the numbers really add up if extrapolated.

As for mining reclamation, laws geared toward its implementation don't seem to be working particularly well.

To quote the article: "As for whether using the sun or using coal to generate a kilowatt-hour disturbs more land, the answer is: coal. Based on the current mix of mining techniques, a solar thermal plant like Blythe will produce 18 GWh per acre of land over a 60-year period. In contrast, a coal-fired power plant will produce 15 GWh per acre of mined land. In other words, the land footprint of coal is about 20 percent bigger than the land footprint of solar thermal."

When queried about whether solar power actually required more land than coal power in light of this, a coal proponent claimed "what he was really talking about was the difficulty of finding suitable Blythe-sized parcels of land meeting all the necessary parameters, such as gradient, insolation, proximity to transmission, etc."

The article goes on to note that Blythe-sized plants may not even be necessary anyhow, citing a number of examples of smaller plants in other places.

Conclusion: "In reality, whether enough suitable sites will be developed to make solar thermal a major slice of the U.S. energy requirements seems mainly a matter of national priorities rather than actual availability. In the case of coal, Uncle Sam has bent over backwards to provide massive chunks of land for coal mining -- in particular by leasing large federal tracts of coal on the cheap in the Powder River Basin region in southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming. A quick scan of existing surface and longwall mines shows a number in the monster range of 5,000-60,000 acres. (By comparison, the area of Manhattan Island is 14,500 acres.)"

So ... politics as usual.

Is an E-Reader a 'Green' Gift?

2010-11-17T15:23:00.000-08:00

While the matter of the "greenness" (greenness? just go with it) of using an e-reader versus reading books made of ink and dead trees has been discussed and debated, it is an unquestionable reality that ebooks are becoming more popular.

So in anticipation of the holidays, retailers expect there to be many e-reader gift purchases this year. Even so, the question of whether one or the other form of reading is more eco-friendly remains.

The answer would seem to be, it depends -- on a lot of things. Things that are taken into account in the Eco-Libris guide to figuring out whether an e-reader is an appropriate gift (in a "green" sense) for someone in particular.

It's a four-step assessment based on actual data that seems to make actual sense.

Note: check the Eco-Libris blog next week, when it covers the topic of which e-reader is best from a "green" point of view.

America Recycles Day!

2010-11-15T19:19:00.000-08:00

In recognition of America Recycles Day (never heard of it, but that's okay), here's an article with helpful hints about recycling and reusing all sorts of things. It covers everything from composting to reusing old coffee grounds.

Finally, just because "something is passed it's best-before date doesn't mean it can't be used in new ways," including these.

So think twice before you toss out that overripe fruit, stale bread or moldy cheese.

Green Books Campaign: The Three Fates of Henrik Nordmark

2010-11-10T09:45:00.000-08:00

This review is part of the Green Books campaign.Today 200 bloggers take a stand to support books printed in an eco-friendly manner by simultaneously publishing reviews of 200 books printed on recycled or FSC-certified paper. By turning a spotlight on books printed using eco- friendly paper, we hope to raise the awareness of book buyers and encourage everyone to take the environment into consideration when purchasing books.

The campaign is organized for the second time by Eco-Libris, a green company working to make reading more sustainable. We invite you to join the discussion on "green" books and support books printed in an eco-friendly manner! A full list of participating blogs and links to their reviews is available on Eco-Libris website.

This book is printed on FSC-certified paper.

Review: THE THREE FATES OF HENRIK NORDMARK

Author: Christopher Meades

Henrik Nordmark may be the plainest, most uninteresting person ever. Henrik is so alienated (and alienating) that he manages at one point to drive people out of a chat room by trying too hard and saying the wrong things. This would make for a very dull story – except that things change quickly. One day at the corner grocery, Henrik chases an errant plum he's dropped outside to the street and bumps into a stranger (who prevents him from lunging into traffic) wearing a tuxedo (in broad daylight!). The stranger stoops to retrieve the plum, a photo is snapped by a distant photographer and the stranger tells Henrik, "You must be careful, my friend," hands him the plum and disappears. For good.

Henrik ponders his near-death experience and vows that he shall become unique if it's the last thing he does.

The tuxedoed man is (of course) the photographer's intended target. However, the photo snapped is Henrik's. This photo is presented to three assassins, all of whom are over 90 years old and living in a retirement home. Their leader, Conrad, is blind. His cohorts Billy Bones and Arthur are (essentially) deaf and mute, respectively. Together, they comprise the world's worst assassination team.

There are three other players in this comedy of errors. Two of them are Roland and Bonnie, customers buying lottery tickets when Henrik dropped the plum. In all the excitement, their lottery tickets get switched. One is the winning ticket, but it ends up in the wrong hands.

Roland is almost (although, not quite) as hopeless as Henrik in the pathetic department. He tends to create his own problems, actually. He has a job and a girlfriend. He has a life Henrik would probably envy. However, he sees himself as a victim.

Meanwhile, there's Bonnie. She's married to Clyde. (Yes, cute, isn't it?) And they each secretly hate and plan to kill the other.

In any case, these people keep crossing paths. While Henrik searches for ways to become unique, the others keep showing up in some fashion or other, and suffer consequences. Meanwhile, the three assassins keep trying to kill Henrik and each attempt goes horribly and humorously awry.

And while the assassins' thwarted attempts may devastate others, Henrik wanders off, contemplating his plight in oblivion.

Will Henrik find salvation? Will it come from Parminder, the Indian woman who dispenses advice on the sly while working the phone banks for a religious organization?

This story, which is thought provoking and hilarious, will appeal to fans of the Douglas Adams sort. Readers who enjoy absurd humor and a bit of screwball comedy.

However, you'd be mistaken to take it for mere slapstick. THE THREE FATES OF HENRIK NORDMARK is about weird coincidence, fate and the ways life can be unfair. It's actually a harsh message, but Meades delivers it with humor, which helps it to go down easier.

The story culminates in a big finish, in which everyone may or may not get their just desserts. And Henrik's three fates? You'll have to read the book to find those out.

Ten Things You Can Do for the Green Books Campaign

2010-11-09T15:34:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow at around 1 p.m. (time zone not specified), 200 bloggers will simultaneously post reviews of books printed on environmentally-friendly paper as part of the 2nd annual Eco-Libris Green Books Campaign. As it happens, I'll be one of them.

The 200 books to be reviewed will be on a wide variety of subjects, such as cooking, poetry, travel, history and fiction. This last one I know to be true, because I snagged a fiction title for myself: THE THREE FATES OF HENRIK NORDMARK by Christopher Meades. My review will appear here tomorrow, as well as on this blog.

In any case, here's 10 things you can do tomorrow for the Green Books Campaign to help promote the cause.

Thanks in advance for your attention and support!

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing

2010-11-04T16:08:00.000-07:00

Recently TerraChoice (an environmental marketing agency) released a report with some interesting findings concerning greenwashing. Among other things, the report stated that malls have more "green" products and products with legitimate eco-friendly claims than smaller stores.

The report also stated that more than 95% of consumer products making a "green" claim committed at least one greenwashing sin.

Much like another list of sins, TerraChoice has identified seven that pertain to greenwashing.

Check out the list for yourself. It seems to provide an actual set of greenwashing criteria.

Hmm ... does the FTC know about these guys?

Where's the Green in NASCAR's Switch to Ethanol?

2010-11-02T16:20:00.000-07:00

NASCAR racing (as part of an overall effort to be more environmentally conscious) will start using ethanol fuel at the 2011 Daytona 500.

According to USA Today:

"NASCAR has put an emphasis on recycling (all tires, oils, fluids and batteries used in competition are recycled, and sponsors have helped expand programs in campgrounds) and achieved LEED certification for new office buildings in Charlotte and Daytona Beach.

"But the switch to ethanol might be the most important step in achieving an ancillary benefit -- attracting new sponsors in the green economy to cash-strapped teams hurting for funding since the onset of the recession."

Well, awesome. Except the Environmental Working Group begs to differ on ethanol being eco-friendly.

As this article in Grist points out:

"We know that between 2005 and 2009, U.S. taxpayers spent $17 billion to subsidize corn ethanol blends in gasoline, an outlay that produced a paltry reduction in overall oil consumption equal to a 1.1 mile-per-gallon increase in fleetwide fuel economy.

"We're sure that corn ethanol production pollutes fresh-water sources in the Midwest. We know that there are serious concerns about ethanol plants and their impact on the environment. We know corn production for ethanol expands the dead zone in the Gulf. We also know it has led to obliteration of wildlife habitat.

"NASCAR might want to ask its fans whether they'd rather watch races or be able to fish in clean water or hunt in abundant habitat."

Oooh. That is so not cool. But wait. The article continues:

"It gets worse. According to this news release, all the ethanol supplied by NASCAR sponsor Sunoco will be produced by a plant in Fulton, N.Y., and blended with gasoline at another facility in Marcus Hooks, Pa. Which means that the fuel powering NASCAR's racers will have to be shipped by truck to far-flung racetracks all over the country.

"The result will be multiple ethanol tank trucks traveling to multiple tracks almost every week of the year. Will these huge semis be burning soy biodiesel? Doubtful.

"The 'green' benefit of burning thousands of gallons of diesel to haul a fuel with dubious environmental benefits to a location where hundreds of cars and trucks drive furiously around in circles, combined with the energy it takes to grow and haul the corn around in the first place is ... less than zero."

Well, ouch. And you do have to wonder how green any sport involving vehicles driving "furiously around in circles" would be in the first place.

Misleading 'Green' Claims Abound

2010-10-29T16:04:00.000-07:00

Well, isn't this a comfort? According to the Wall Street Journal:

"According to a study due out [last] Tuesday, more than 95% of consumer products examined committed at least one offense of 'greenwashing,' a term used to describe unproven environmental claims, according TerraChoice, a North American environmental-marketing company that issued the report."

Although the problem of unsubstantiated "green" claims has abated (ever so slightly) in the past few years, "the problem is still widely prevalent as more manufacturers flood the market with items deemed to be better for the environment. Of particular concern: items proclaiming to be free of controversial chemicals BPA and phthalates—especially baby and toy products, according to the report."

Think that's bad? It gets even worse. According to the article:

"The study examined more than 5,000 consumer products in 34 stores in the U.S. and Canada and found 12,061 'green' claims among them. Among the infractions found: fibbing about or having no proof of environmental claims, vague or poorly defined marketing language, such as 'all-natural,' and the use of fake labels designed to imply a product has third-party certification or endorsement of its claims."

Not only that, but check this out:

"Separately, the report found that the most common examples of outright fibbing came from products falsely claiming to be compliant with the federal government's Energy Star program. The government is tightening its monitoring of such claims."

Okay, so the most egregious lies were perpetrated through claims approved by a federal government certification program. My, that is a comfort. Almost as much a comfort as this:

"The findings come as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which can take action against unfair or deceptive marketing practices, has proposed tightening its guidelines to help marketers avoid making misleading environmental claims. Among the proposals: cautioning marketers not to use 'unqualified certifications or seals of approval' regarding their claims, and not to make blanket, general assertions that a product is 'environmentally friendly' or 'eco-friendly' because such claims are nearly impossible to substantiate."

Uh, yeah. You may recall I blogged about these proposed guidelines. The ones that didn't bother to define "green" or "sustainable." Get the feeling the FTC is getting some comments on that?

What's All the Noise About the Compostable Sun Chips Bag About?

2010-10-25T15:25:00.000-07:00

I don't know about you, but the mere fact that a compostable bag makes noise doesn't seem like much a problem to me. Nonetheless, Frito-Lay has ditched its Sun Chips compostable bag, due to consumer complaints that it's too loud.

Why did this turn into such a kerfuffle? (And who uses the word "kerfuffle," anymore?)

Because, according to blogger Suzanne Shelton, "mainstream American consumers value their personal comfort more than they value the environment."

Shelton goes on to note the following:

"76% of us would choose our comfort or our convenience over the environment any day, and most of us wouldn't give up many of the things we currently own if we thought they were harming the environment. (35% of us are magnanimous enough to give up our ipods…and 65% of us are not.)

"A loud Sunchips bag flies in the face of our desire for comfort. We want the cool, compostable packaging, but we want it to sound, look and feel exactly like what we're used to.

"In short, we want it to be easy to be green, and often it's not. It's loud."

Jeez, people. It's just a bag. How loud could it have been?

This Article is Actually About Tar Sands, Not Toiletries

2010-10-14T20:27:00.000-07:00

Despite the headline and mentions of hotel toiletries in the third paragraph, this article in Grist is really about tar sands companies. These companies are apparently in the dirty business of producing usable petroleum from tar sands through a process that "requires three to four times the greenhouse-gas emissions of conventional drilling, plus two to four barrels of water per barrel of oil, the remains of which are fed into tailings ponds."

Jonathan Hiskes writes that, among other things, the "public-relations efforts of tar-sands companies (which get much more attention in Canada than in the U.S.) center on a pledge to 'reclaim' the tracts of boreal forest they've disrupted. But they're not restoring what was previously there. They're replacing the natural muskeg -- a soupy, boggy wetland -- with dry infill planted with seedlings, a very different landscape. No one's figured out how to re-create muskeg."

Not only that, but Hiskes notes, "At the edge of the reclaimed forest, near a buffalo reserve, an unintentionally hilarious sign heralds 'The Future: Lakefront Property.' After the waste ponds have reached a depth of 40 meters (workers build berms of waste sand to contain them), Suncor will top off the toxic water with five meters of clean water. That's enough, the sign says, for a 'diverse and productive ecosystem of plants and animals.'"

Ewww. Clearly, this isn't a good thing at all. In fact, these are good examples of companies pretending to do the eco-friendly thing while despoiling the environment. And while I agree with Hiskes that the tar sands companies need to clean up their act, I have nothing against hotels who buy shampoo in biodegradable bottles. I guess it's supposed to be ironic or something, but it ends up being more of a non sequitur.

The FTC's Proposed Green Marketing Guidelines -- Anything There?

2010-10-11T16:09:00.000-07:00

As reported recently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a set of proposed guidelines for claiming that products are "green" or "eco-friendly."

According to FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, "The Green Guides were designed to help businesses avoid making misleading environmental claims. ... That, of course, helps consumers."

The article goes on to say: "Leibowitz described an 'explosion' of green claims being made for a variety of goods, ranging from paper towels to textiles, leaving consumers confused about what they're buying. 'We're not always getting what we think we're getting,' he said."

And these proposed guidelines are really going to clear things up, right? Well ...

According to this article by Joel Makower, maybe the guidelines aren't quite as earthshaking as some people make them out to be.

To wit (and quoting Makower): "Like their predecessors, the proposed updated guides represent a low bar, intended to eliminate outright misrepresentation and fabrications. Their updating do not herald a new era of green marketing. Despite some near-hysterical predictions, they aren't likely to 'radically reshape how far marketers can go in painting their products, packaging or even corporate images green,' as Advertising Age recently speculated.

"For green marketers, it is not the end of the world as we know it. They won't likely change the landscape much, and most definitely won't eliminate critics' charges of 'greenwashing.'"

Furthermore, as Makower points out, the guidance contains nothing about reduced packaging (as opposed to the biodegradable or compostable kind). In fact (and most unbelievably), the guidelines don't bother to define the terms "sustainable" or "sustainably." Or "green."

So how does Makower feel about this? He takes it all quite philosophically. He says some people will laud the guidelines and others won't. That's hardly an earthshaking prediction.

In any case, he concludes: "The 'Green Guides' are finally out. Now, let's get on with our lives."

Okay, sure. Why not? (But, seriously, WTF do we pay these people at the FTC for, anyway?)

Myths and Facts About Nuclear Power

2010-10-07T15:30:00.000-07:00

This article presents a point-by-point discussion of several purported myths about nuclear energy. (I say "purported" simply because that's what they are. I'm not expressing an opinion either way.)

Rather than try to summarize this semi-treatise of an article (with footnotes and everything!), I'll just let you read it.

I would, however, like to comment on the following assertion:

"Childhood leukemia rates are no higher near nuclear power plants than they are near organic farms. 'Leukemia clusters' are geographic areas where the rates of childhood leukemia appear to be higher than normal, but the definition is controversial because it ignores the fact that leukemia is actually several very different (and unrelated) diseases with different causes (16).

"Men who work on nuclear submarines or in nuclear plants are no more likely to father children with leukemia (or any other disease) than workers in any other industry (18)."

Okay, since I have no access to the footnoted references, I have no idea who did these studies. I GUESS they may have been done by the Leukemia Research Foundation (whoever the heck they are and whatever their agenda is). I haven't seen the studies themselves, so I have no idea of the protocols used. I don't know what they mean by "organic farms." It could be someone else did the studies and the foundation is citing them. I have no idea.

And what the heck happened to footnote 17?

(Do check out the spirited discussion in comments after the article. Some interesting issues get raised. And how do you suppose the people around Yucca Mountain would react to this?)

Oh, Those Transgenic Crops!

2010-09-30T16:27:00.000-07:00

You know those crops that are genetically engineered so growers don't have to use as much pesticide? Well, they've been something of a concern for some time now. Among other things, the Environmental Protection Agency has been concerned about "superbugs" or pests that are resistant to the genetically engineered plants. In addition, there's been the matter of cross-pollination with other, um, natural plants (for lack of a better term).

So now, (according to this article) along with the admission from Monsanto (who engineers these plants) that maybe there is a wee bit of a problem with "superbugs," it turns out the Bt toxin in the plants is polluting the waters of Indiana (the study area -- and God knows where else).

Needless to say, this is all more than a little ironic, given that the whole point of developing Bt toxin in these plants is to avoid pesticide use, thus avoiding pesticide runoff into the very same waters that are being polluted by the Bt from the plants.

Ah, yes, and there are other little problems with these crops that the article goes into (I'll let you read the gory details yourself). Ultimately, it leads up to this summation:

"The fun part? No one has any idea yet of the effects of long-term, low-dose exposure to Bt on fish and wildlife. Perhaps it's high time somebody did a study on that since, as the researchers dryly observed, the presence of Bt toxin 'may be a more common occurrence in watersheds draining maize-growing regions than previously recognized.' Apparently.

"So. Not only do genetically engineered crops have worse yields than conventionally bred crops, cost more, lead to pesticide resistance, contaminate other plants with their transgenes, possibly cause allergies and even organ damage, but now we also learn that the plants themselves are possibly poisonous to the environment."

*sigh* What is it they say about best-laid plans?

What You Can Learn From Picking Up Trash

2010-09-28T16:23:00.000-07:00

Okay, we all know that littering is bad. It makes the landscape ugly and causes American Indians to cry. (We know this from old commercials.) We use trash cans (don't we?) and (I hope) generally try to avoid cluttering our environment up.

Here, however, are "five not so obvious things" someone from Recycle Match learned from picking trash up by hand. (And had I noticed that the Ocean Conservancy was having their 25th annual International Coastal Clean-up last Saturday, I would have posted this sooner. Sorry. :-/)

The first one is: "Most people in cities believe that there is a filtration system in the storm sewer that collects whatever trash blows down there. Not true." Hmm ... okay. I'd agree. That is a not-so-obvious thing.

But I especially like No. 3: "Everyone has experienced a gust of wind making off with some piece of trash at some point. But if you think about it, there are nearly 7 Billion people in the world. If we assume it has happened to each of us once, even if it’s just a candy wrapper, that’s a lot of trash."

It's like we are ALL responsible in our own small way. We can keep our planet clean, one candy wrapper (or bottle cap or plastic bag or whatever) at a time.

The rest seem, well, kind of obvious to me. But, hey, that's just me. :)

So, anyway, check out the list. Whether obvious or not, I like the conclusion:

"Whether you are a company or just one person – we can all work to achieve zero waste. After all, if you are not for zero waste, how much waste are you for?"

Good question.

The 2nd Annual Green Books Campaign

2010-09-22T19:41:00.000-07:00

Eco-Libris is seeking bloggers to participate in the 2nd Annual Green Books Campaign: On November 10, 200 bloggers will simultaneously publish reviews of 200 books printed on recycled paper or FSC-certified paper. The campaign will use the power of the Internet and social media to promote books that are printed in an eco-friendly manner.

According to Eco-Libris: "The first campaign took place last November when over 100 bloggers simultaneously published reviews of more than 100 books printed on recycled or FSC-certified paper. This campaign also involved 40 publishers from the U.S., Canada and the U.K. You can see the books and bloggers that participated on the campaign's page. The campaign was very successful -- more than 15,000 readers were exposed to the campaign and it received very positive feedback from publishers, bloggers and readers. Therefore, we decided to run it again this year, but this time with 200 bloggers! This year we are also collaborating with Indigo Books and Music, the largest book retailer in Canada, to increase the campaign's exposure and impact.

"Just like last year, the idea is to have 200 bloggers, who review books on a regular basis, to simultaneously publish their book review of a 'green book' of their choice on Wednesday, November 10 2010. Our goal also hasn't changed: To use the power of the internet and social media to promote 'green' books and increase the awareness of both readers and publishers to the way books can be printed printed in an eco-friendly manner."

The first step is to choose a "green" book you would like to review from the list of books available. (Please note they recommend increasing the magnification of the web page up to (at least) 125% to see all the details.) The books will be assigned on a first come-first served basis. Once a book is taken, the name of the blog will appear next to it in the column 'assigned blog'.

Eco-Libris describes itself as "a green company working to green up the book industry by promoting the adoption of green practices in the industry, balancing out books by planting trees, and supporting green books." It's Web site is http://www.ecolibris.net.

If you're interested or would like more details, just get in touch with Raz Godelnik of Eco-Libris at raz@ecolibris.net.

I'll be participating on my book review blog, The Book Grrl. I'll be sure to include a link to the review on this blog, too, for anyone who might be interested.

And (FYI) I've chosen to review THE THREE FATES OF HENRIK NORDMARK. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Unlimited Renewable Energy That’s Grid-Ready and Cheaper Than Coal

2010-09-17T18:33:00.000-07:00

That's the headline on this brief item, which describes and depicts a "spindrift energy device." The device has been entered into what looks like an inventors' competition to create new renewable energy technologies.

The sum and substance of the description is (verbatim): "We have designed a hydrokinetic electrical power generation device that is simple, inexpensive, low-maintenance and durable. We estimate that it will generate electricity at 1.5 cents/kWh, versus 3.0 cents/kWh for coal and 3-40 cents/kWh for existing renewables. And, this technology can scale without limit."

Can this be? Is it too good to be true?

Not according to the comments (scroll down and read them). They're hailing the invention as a stroke of genius.

So is there a catch? I was thinking it might be cost -- that always seems to be an issue. But not in this case, apparently.

When asked in a comment to compare this device to others using similar technologies, the inventor said (and I quote):

"DIFFERENCE ONE: Spindrift devices are ultra-simple, only 3 moving parts. This has several implications. First, they will be very low-cost, providing a very low capital cost per kW. Second, they will be very low-maintenance. The only expected maintenance will be adding a few drops of oil to the alternator bearings every year, and possibly replacing the turbine every 10 years (if cavitation is more of a problem than anticipated). The efficiency of these devices, and their low-maintenance requirements, will help them to to deliver power at a cost far below that of coal-fired electrical power, currently the cheapest electrical power in wide-spread use. DIFFERENCE TWO: Spindrift devices will be able to survive the worst storms at sea, even hurricanes. These devices, from the outside, are just concrete buoys bobbing up-and-down - much like navigational buoys. The shaft, and attached propeller, coming out of the bottom of each buoy will be well-protected. Spindrift devices will ride the waves of storms without damage. LOW-COST, LOW-MAINTENANCE, DURABILITY" (Italics added.)

Oh, my. Sounds like we might have a winner.

Electric Cars: More Hype Than Hope?

2010-09-14T20:17:00.000-07:00

Well, after all the excitement in the news about electric cars, this article dashes quite a lot of cold water on all of that.

Between being underpowered, overly-priced and all those pedestrians and pets who'll get squashed because they run so silently, the electric car may have a few bugs to work out.

In addition:

"Recently, Britain's state-controlled BBC, quoting electric car maker Mitsubishi, said the cost of ownership of battery cars is actually more than regular cars when you figure in depreciation, so the argument about running costs is lost. The transmission of electric power from generation to use is enormously inefficient, with some experts saying only just over 30 percent of the original power is actually available for use, the rest draining away during transportation; so much for increased efficiency. The power generated mainly comes from coal fired power stations so the zero emissions claim goes out the window, although in France, where upwards of 80 percent of electricity is generated by nuclear power, this claim does resonate."

There's a lot more of this kind of thing in the article. It really doesn't offer much hope that electric vehicles are viable for anything other than commercial use.

According to Professor Garyl Rhys, president of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research at Cardiff University, "I think a lot of politics is involved in full electric vehicles. Why buy an electric vehicle, when the other (green) choices would appear to be a much more reassuring option for the vehicle buying public. There's still going to be many, many years of life left in the internal combustion engine, albeit alongside batteries or fuel cells or whatever. Internal combustion engines, despite all the hype are not on the verge of disappearing and most people expect it to still be very much in use in 2050."

Rhys says he can't "really see electric vehicles before 2025 having much of a market share until you start getting really viable batteries. That's what we await; the long promised breakthrough in energy storage of batteries and the charging infrastructure. As for an energy storage breakthrough, there's nothing on the horizon before 2025."

And it seems the New York Times agrees that we aren't quite there when it comes to electric cars.

News like that will defuse your Volta and blow away your Leaf.

And in More Food-Related News ...

2010-09-09T08:45:00.000-07:00

Little did I know when I posted this op-ed questioning the sustainability of locavore practices, that it would end up sparking a food fight. (The op-ed, that is, not my post.)

While a philosophy that embraces supporting local farmers and reducing energy usage from transporting food over longer distances seems like a good idea, others argue otherwise.

Locavore critics include Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Pat Roberts of Kansas, who "wrote a letter questioning the Department of Agriculture's $65 million Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food program, which they said was using public funds to 'prop up urban locavore markets.'

"The effort, they wrote, 'doesn't appear geared toward conventional farmers who produce the vast majority of our nation's food supply, but is instead aimed at small, hobbyist and organic producers whose customers generally consist of affluent patrons at urban farmers markets.'"

Okay, so the detractors are Republicans from states with affected constituents, who throw around terms like "affluent patrons" and "hobbyist" like so much confetti. Are there other (i.e., less political) reasons to be concerned about the locavore trend?

Apparently, so. According to the article, a couple of scholars have also raised an alarm about it.

"[E]conomist Hiroko Shimizu and University of Toronto geographer Pierre Desrochers are finishing a 2011 book, tentatively called IN PRAISE OF THE 10,000 MILE DIET, that argues locavorism is a misleading marketing fad that, among other problems, ignores the threat it poses to the current affordability of food and to the economic health of developing countries.

"Food security can suffer if 'you put all your eggs in one local basket and something goes wrong,' Desrochers said from his Toronto office. 'I also have a problem when local food activists want to promote food that is either not economical or cannot compete with foreign food in that area.'"

And how do locavores respond? Like this:

"Locavores respond to the claims of elitism by citing the thousands of people across the country who use food stamps at farmers markets — the Daley Plaza market recently took in $890 of food stamps in a day. They also say the $65 million USDA program is dwarfed by the $12 billion in subsidies awarded to big conventional commodity farmers last year and that energy usage is only one factor in their decision to consume local products."

Um, okay. So people use food stamps at farmers markets. And the USDA program is tiny by comparison to big ag subsidies. Can we get back to the sustainability issue? And if energy usage is just one factor in determining it, what are the others?

Oh, here's something:

"A recent white paper from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School reported that healthier crop varieties, richer sustainable soil, riper harvesting, shorter vine to fork times and less handling can give local sustainable produce 'distinct advantages' in nutrition over conventionally grown produce shipped long distances."

How "distinct" are those advantages, I wonder. Anyway, other factors include better taste and creating a sense of community with local growers. A sense of community that even locavores admit can come with a higher price tag. (Thus, the need of some buyers to use food stamps?)

Even so, locavore supporters are reportedly looking for ways to make locally-grown food more affordable.

Which all seems quite warm, fuzzy and nice, but what about Desrochers' point? Having all your eggs in one local basket does seem to be, well, potentially problematic. I suspect the "right" answers may be highly dependent on circumstances within any particular country's economy. Anyway, read the article. It explains it in more detail. And feel free to weigh in on the debate.

And, while we're on the topic of sustainable food production, should this place be named Trader Joe's or Traitor Joe's?

Agropolis: Growing Food in a Warehouse is Good?

2010-09-06T18:51:00.001-07:00

I became aware of Agropolis after reading this article in Grist about them. Apparently, their approach is to convert large buildings into places where food can be grown and sold.

As the article states, it's "the soil-free, pesticide-free, and travel-free concept grocery store, urban farm, and restaurant, all rolled into one."

The article's headline summarizes the main concept: "It (almost) can't get more local than growing at the grocery store."

Based on the Agropolis Web site, that does seem to be main idea. The Web site states as follows:

"AGROPOLIS is a concept for the next wave of hydroponic, aeroponic, aquaponic farming – growing vegetables without the use of soil. Initially, it will be a combined farm/restaurant/concept store, where people come to eat food they can see was grown on the premises. You walk into the store and on all the walls, and through the back wall into a room beyond, you see nothing but green – the vegetables sold in the store being grown on site. Underneath your feet you will see tilapia swimming in the aquaponics fishtank, the nutrients they process going directly to feed the plants. The store is an ecosystem unto itself. What we offer to consumers is a different experience with food. You will never have a tomato fresher than one you just saw being picked, or a lettuce more local than one where you stand next to the room in which it was grown. That is the value we offer."

Hmm ... I wonder how much energy is being consumed to create these places? And what the person who wrote the op-ed blogged about here would think of this.

Free Range Does Not Equal Good?

2010-09-01T15:30:00.000-07:00

I happened to be doing a little research on the poultry industry for a mystery novel I'm writing. The third in a series starting with this one, actually. In any case, I came across this Web site for the Eastern Shore Sanctuary Blog, which had a post titled Free Range = Misery.

Well, that got my attention. I checked the video.

It starts off showing a farm animal sanctuary. Very nice, but it gets kind of ugly about halfway through, then turns positively graphic. Hard to stomach.

It also led me to this video.

Not pretty.

Bike-Sharing Part of U.N. Conspiracy?

2010-08-28T19:09:00.000-07:00

I recently saw this interesting item in Grist about using smartphones to create bike-sharing networks. It's a nice idea, so I was a bit more than surprised to read the (tongue-in-cheek) suggestion that this could be part of a United Nations conspiracy.

After thinking WTF????, I clicked on the link that led to this rather amazing article about Colorado's Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes.

Well, I'll just quote the article and let you judge for yourself:

"Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding, are 'converting Denver into a United Nations community.'

"'This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed,' Maes told about 50 supporters who showed up at a campaign rally last week in Centennial.

"Maes said in a later interview that he once thought the mayor's efforts to promote cycling and other environmental initiatives were harmless and well-meaning. Now he realizes 'that's exactly the attitude they want you to have.'

"'This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms,' Maes said.

"... He added: 'These aren't just warm, fuzzy ideas from the mayor. These are very specific strategies that are dictated to us by this United Nations program that mayors have signed on to.'"

Um, okay.

Well, at least 50 supporters hardly amounts to a groundswell, right? Unfortunately, he's got a few more than 50 supporters. As the article states: "Polls show that Maes, a Tea Party favorite, has pulled ahead of former Congressman Scott McInnis, the early frontrunner in the Aug. 10 primary for the Republican gubernatorial nomination."

I'd like to say this surprises me, but how can it in the wake of events like this that happened today of all days.

I wonder where Glenn Beck stands on bike-sharing and the U.N. Sheesh.

Is Being a Rabid Locavore Eco-Unfriendly?

2010-08-24T19:39:00.000-07:00

A most interesting op-ed column from the New York Times points out that eating nothing but locally grown produce may not be as energy efficient or eco-friendly as some of its proponents think.

The column states that "the local food movement now threatens to devolve into another one of those self-indulgent — and self-defeating — do-gooder dogmas. Arbitrary rules, without any real scientific basis, are repeated as gospel by 'locavores,' celebrity chefs and mainstream environmental organizations. Words like 'sustainability' and 'food-miles' are thrown around without any clear understanding of the larger picture of energy and land use."

I don't know about you, but I hate when people start throwing terms around like that. It is part of the reason I started this blog, after all.

*sigh* Anyhow, to continue:

"The result has been all kinds of absurdities. For instance, it is sinful in New York City to buy a tomato grown in a California field because of the energy spent to truck it across the country; it is virtuous to buy one grown in a lavishly heated greenhouse in, say, the Hudson Valley."

I've often wondered where people who live in climates that aren't hospitable to growing vegetables or fruit in winter are supposed to buy such things. Often, you'll hear that those people should simply eat what's available in their area. So I guess people in northern climates can never drink orange juice? Or eat any other citrus fruit? (Ever hear of scurvy? But I digress ...)

Still there's even more to this argument than just the inability to grow veggies and fruits in some places without heated greenhouse intervention.

As the column goes on to state: "The statistics brandished by local-food advocates to support such doctrinaire assertions are always selective, usually misleading and often bogus. This is particularly the case with respect to the energy costs of transporting food. One popular and oft-repeated statistic is that it takes 36 (sometimes it's 97) calories of fossil fuel energy to bring one calorie of iceberg lettuce from California to the East Coast. That's an apples and oranges (or maybe apples and rocks) comparison to begin with, because you can't eat petroleum or burn iceberg lettuce.

"It is also an almost complete misrepresentation of reality, as those numbers reflect the entire energy cost of producing lettuce from seed to dinner table, not just transportation. Studies have shown that whether it’s grown in California or Maine, or whether it's organic or conventional, about 5,000 calories of energy go into one pound of lettuce. Given how efficient trains and tractor-trailers are, shipping a head of lettuce across the country actually adds next to nothing to the total energy bill."

Well, studies can be flawed (and outcomes can depend on who conducted them), but even so the column is well worth reading. And provides plenty of food for thought.

Our Lease on Earth is Running Out

2010-08-20T15:12:00.000-07:00

Stephen Hawking (the genius physicist you've probably heard about) says we have to leave Earth. Or at least make plans to leave, if we want the human race to continue indefinitely.

Setting aside for the moment the question of whether the human race should continue indefinitely, here are some of Hawking's thoughts as expressed on the blog Big Think:

"I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be in space ... It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let's hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load."

Hawking then talks about how we "narrowly escaped extinction" (quoting the post) during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1963 and the amazing proliferation of nuclear weaponry since then.

The article then goes on to state: "Even if humans manage to avoid a nuclear stand-off over the next thousand years, our fate on this planet is still pretty much certain. University of Sussex astrophysicist Dr. Robert Smith says eventually the aging Sun will accelerate global warming to a point where all of Earth's water will simply evaporate.

"'Life on Earth will have disappeared long before 7.6 billion years,' says Smith, 'Scientists have shown that the Sun's slow expansion will cause the temperature at the surface of the Earth to rise. Oceans will evaporate, and the atmosphere will become laden with water vapor, which (like carbon dioxide) is a very effective greenhouse gas. Eventually, the oceans will boil dry and the water vapor will escape into space. In a billion years from now the Earth will be a very hot, dry and uninhabitable ball.'

"Finally, between the next thousand years or so that Hawking says it will take man to make the planet uninhabitable and the billion years it will take for the sun to turn our planet into an arid wasteland, there is always the chance that a nearby supernova, an asteroid, or a quick and painless black hole could do us in."

Lovely.

Oh, where is Douglas Adams when we need him most? I'm not sure whether to assure you with words like "Don't Panic" (in big friendly letters) or cry "So this is it... we're going to die!"

In any case, hang onto your towel.

Energy Deregulation and 'Green' Electricity

2010-08-17T10:42:00.000-07:00

While energy deregulation may come under the heading of "please, not yet another choice" for many of us, John Howley, who authors John Howley's Green Energy blog has noted that one of its less-heralded benefits is the ability (to the extent such options are available in your area -- in this case, we're talking about New Jersey) to choose a company that provides electricity generated by eco-friendly means.

Having said that, he notes that he harbored some doubt as to the complete "greenness" of the electricity he was buying. To quote the post: "We quickly understood the financial impact of our choice when our electric bill went down, but I wasn't really sure about the 'greenness' of the electricity. Was this just a marketing gimmick? After all, it's not as if the specific watts that find their way to our home can be identified as wind generated. The utility and the third party suppliers push all their electricity onto the same grid, and by the time it reaches our home you cannot distinguish between the watt generated by a dirty coal-fired plant and the nice, clean wind power that we bought. In fact, depending on the time of day, overall demand on the system, and strength of the wind, most of the electricity powering our home could be 'dirty.'"

So does the choice matter? His answer is yes, it does, and he outlines a nice persuasive (IMHO) argument about why.

And I see from the post that renewable energy choices are available in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, or Maryland. Sweet!

There, you see. I'm not completely snarky.

The Problem with Biodegradable/Compostable Plastics

2010-08-12T16:25:00.000-07:00

You would think that buying products packaged in biodegradable or compostable plastics would be a good thing, yes? Well, it's complicated.

It's so complicated that Best in Packaging posted this about the matter. The post is longish and gets a bit techie, but the bottom line is this: even if a plastic is capable of biodegrading, it may not be readily compostable. It also doesn't mean it will degrade in a landfill, where the oxygen required for the stuff to break down is distinctly lacking.

The post also points out a few ancillary problems, including this nugget: "Biodegradable packaging that is recyclable might have entered the waste stream where it is causing major problems in some long-life products using recycled plastics such as pipes, builders’ sheeting, agricultural sheeting and the like – with possible market loss to the recycling industry. The failure is essentially caused by the degradation process breaking down the molecular structure of the plastic."

Oh, my. Because of this, er, confusion (let us call it that), "the industry is greenwashing its image in regard to the consumer, [and] the same consumer is left with the fictional idea that he is helping to save the environment by buying products in so-called biodegradable, compostable, packages."

So, what to do? The post concludes as follows: "Why use and promote biodegradable and compostable packaging material when it all ends up in landfills or incinerators. Increasing usage of biodegradable films is in conflict with 'separation-at-source' initiatives. Consumers are confused when it comes to separating biodegradable, compostable and recyclable plastics. The food industry is very much aware of this and consequently promoting 'compostability' in such a prominent way as Frito-Lay and others are doing, has the smell of 'monkey business'."

*sigh* My brain hurts.

Is Green Marketing an Oxymoron?

2010-08-09T15:14:00.000-07:00

This article by Anne Michelson, owner of Green Ink Copywriting (and, as such, a provider of "green marketing" services), grapples with laudable honesty and directness with the issue of whether it is possible for green marketing to be anything other than greenwashing in a society that hasn't yet incorporated sustainability principles fully within its economic framework.

In other words, is this green marketing stuff all a bunch of hooey? (I could use a less polite word, but will stick with "hooey" because it's so dorky, it's cool. As is the word "dorky.")

To quote Michelson:

"To be sure, it's easy to get downhearted trying to be sustainable in an unsustainable society. It's easy to see 'green marketing' as an oxymoron when we think about how many resources we're still consuming even when we try to cut down on our consumption.

"But we have to start somewhere. And despite all the greenwashing, if you look at the change in public consciousness in the past five years alone, you'll realize that collectively, we are making a difference.

"Personally, I think business and marketing can exist and thrive within a sustainable society. In fact, it has to. Just as sustainability in Nature depends on the flow of energy or life, so economic sustainability depends on the flow of profits.

"However, achieving such a goal will result in a radically different business climate than we may be used to. We're going to have to change from a linear to a circular understanding of the flow of both products and profits. Which for many of us will require a radical shift in our physical, mental and spiritual relationship to and understanding of the world we live in."

Michelson then engages in a brief discussion about the need to align one's life purpose/business/goals so as to be in harmony with the "greater universe" and support of a sustainable future. Even if it's on a small scale. As she says, you have to start somewhere.

Well, I can't argue with that. Peace out and pass the granola.

Which Story About the Drilling Moratorium is BS?

2010-07-22T14:50:00.000-07:00

I must admit to being surprised to see this article run in Grist. The headline ("A deepwater drilling moratorium might be a bad idea for Louisiana") pretty much sums it up.

After acknowledging the devastating effect the recent BP oil spill had on his oyster harvesting business, one oysterman has come out against the moratorium.

According to the article, the oysterman considers it "one more lunacy imposed on coastal Louisiana by outside 'experts,' a group he neither trusts nor respects. Invoking an analogy I heard countless times during a week of reporting there, he asks, 'When a airplane crashes, do you ground every plane in the country? No. You find out what caused the problem and fix it. You don't punish the entire industry.' He points a well-muscled arm toward the dozens of other shrimp and fishing boats docked nearby. 'Sixty percent of these guys work on oil rigs, or they service rigs, during the [seafood] off-season,' he explains. 'The economy here was just getting back on its feet after Katrina. This moratorium will kill us.'"

Hmm. Well, first, I'm not sure about that airplane crash analogy. If a plane crashes, a lot of people may die or be injured. However, it doesn't cause devastating pollution to ocean habitats or adjoining marshlands. And I'm talking about a devastating mess that will take decades and countless dollars to rectify.

Second, what about the fact (according to Rachel Maddow) that the vast majority of oil wells in the Gulf are for "production" and not "drilling"?

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow - Oil Drilling vs Oil Production, Gov. Jindal: What could possibly go wrong?
- Watch more Politics Videos at Vodpod.

So ... two different things. I'm assuming oystermen can work on production rigs, as well as drilling rigs? Yes? No?

A Word About My Ebook Launch

2010-07-19T16:09:00.000-07:00

I'm interrupting the regularly scheduled content in this blog to extend an invitation.

In case you don't read my other blog, My Life on the Mid-List, I just wanted to inform you all that I'll be having an Amazon book launch for my ebook short story collection. The book is called FIVE UNEASY PIECES and you're hereby invited to attend. The launch starts tomorrow (July 20, 2010) and will be an all-day online event (all-day for me, anyway lol).

BTW, if the ebook hits #1 in the Kindle Store before the end of the day tomorrow, there will be a random drawing to give away prizes to one lucky winner.

If you're interested, just click here for details about the launch, the prizes and how to enter the random drawing.

Then feel free to follow along as I post the book's rank every hour on Facebook and Twitter (look for the hashtag #5UP), as well as mention significant developments on my other blog.

And, with any luck, the book's launch will go something like this ...

Thanks! Hope to see you.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming next time.

Walmart and Sustainability: The One-Year Anniversary

2010-07-19T15:30:00.000-07:00

So it's been exactly a year since Walmart launched its Sustainability Index and, as Joel Makower puts it, "remarkably, the sun still rises in the East and sets in the West."

Okay, I take it Walmart's attempts haven't been completely futile, but the matter of achieving total sustainability has turned out to be, um, complicated.

Makower does a nice job of going over all the good, bad and ugly news on this.

Although Walmart "has fundamentally changed the conversation about products and sustainability in general, and about the environmental impacts of supply chains in particular," it has run into problems getting responses to its 15-question survey of suppliers. (Fact: it's hard to get people to respond to surveys, let alone surveys that judge sustainability.)

On top of that, Walmart's measure of sustainability may not account for the whole picture. Matters such as employee working conditions and community impact may be getting overlooked. (And this is a surprise from a company that's rabidly anti-union? And whose stores are located primarily in big box shopping centers amid suburban sprawl? Nope.)

Makower ultimately states:

"I’ll conclude where I started a year ago: This is both more and less than meets the eye. Walmart continues to deserve credit for its commitment and audacious goals, and for the ripples it has created. And, to be fair, no one expected miracles in just twelve months.

"But Walmart and its suppliers and partners have unwittingly demonstrated how hard all of this is -- that even the world’s biggest retailer has a limited set of tools when it comes to moving the marketplace towards greener goods, more responsible suppliers, and more conscientious customers."

Fair enough. But we'll continue to keep our eye on this.

Utilities Trying to Pull 'the Scam of the Decade'?

2010-07-15T14:31:00.000-07:00

Have I mentioned how much I like David Roberts of Grist? When Roberts gets fired up over an issue, nothing will stop him from writing about it. Not even his vacation could keep Roberts from speaking up about the travesty that utilities are trying to pull.

That travesty would be to support a limited cap-and-trade bill that covers their industry, in exchange for (here's the travesty part) being exempted from new Clean Air regulations the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing.

Why is this a travesty? Well, EPA should have been updating its Clean Air regs for, like, forever. The agency failed to do so during the Bush administration. (What a surprise.) So EPA is pretty much doing a major overhaul on air standards. One that's going to force utilities to scramble for solutions to long-standing emissions problems.

Meanwhile, since this latest cap-and-trade bill isn't quite as wonderful (or supported) as it could be, utilities are dangling the carrot of support in exchange for being exempted from the new emissions standards.

So, at the risk of alienating himself from his family's affections, Roberts took the time to write this article, in which he states in no uncertain terms (and in bold print): "A deal to exempt utilities from new Clean Air Act rules in exchange for their support for a utility-only cap-and-trade system would be a terrible deal."

After stating his case, Roberts concludes:

"Utilities are extremely accustomed to their moldy old business models and practically allergic to innovation, so they're reacting to the coming regulations with the same strategy they've always used: whining to politicians. They're telling politicians that the regulations will force coal plant shutdowns faster than replacement generation can be found. There will be reliability issues. Brownouts! Puppies will freeze! Grandma will bake!

"It's bull -- the same bull they've been peddling for years. If they get away with it, it will mark the true devolution of the climate bill into farce."

Then, he promises, "More, probably much more, when I'm back next week."

That's why I like David Roberts. I'm totally into this guy's anger. I really love the way he's called these utilities out. I totally appreciate his not mincing words.

And, all right -- maybe it doesn't hurt that he looks like Jonathan Frakes -- the actor who played Will Riker on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Things Don't Always Go Better with Coke

2010-07-12T15:55:00.000-07:00

Recently, the blog Cause Capitalism featured a post about the Coca-Cola Company's "sticky situation" with respect to a company in which it held a (thankfully) minority share.

Honest Tea was founded 12 years ago to sell tea as a "refreshing and non-sugary alternative to soda and syrupy fruit juices and teas." Its teas are all USDA certified organic, consisting of eight fair trade certified varieties that come in fully recyclable plastic bottles. So, basically, Honest Tea would appear to be sustainable and then some.

So Coke buys into the company and, to its horror, notices the wording "no high-fructose corn syrup" on the labels. (Well, duh.)

Anyhow, Coke wanted Honest Tea to, um, get rid of those words because it made their soda look bad by comparison. (Well, duh, again.)

Fortunately for all of us (except Coke, I guess), Honest Tea retains control of this decision. They refused to change the wording. The whole point was to create a non-sugary alternative to soda and fruit juices. Why would they change it? (Well ... you get the picture.)

A sad commentary, really. Coke has apparently tried to buy its way into the sustainability concept without following through with (pardon the pun) the real thing.

The Wind from Weather Forecasters Blows Ill on Climate Change

2010-07-06T16:33:00.000-07:00

According to this article from Grist, television weather forecasters and news directors are distorting climate coverage.

A survey a few months ago showed that one out of four weather forecasters didn't believe global warming was occurring and another 21 percent weren't sure. Now, a new survey of TV news directors shows that 21 percent of them don't believe in global warming and 26 percent aren't sure.

Why is this happening? Well, it could relate to the lack of scientific savvy in TV newsrooms, generally. Or the fact that only 10 percent of TV newsrooms have a full-time environmental or scientific reporter. Thus, the news about global warming falls to the weather forecaster (a person who often hasn't covered a scientific or environmental news beat).

Some people are blaming this on the blogosphere. I guess a lot of weather forecasters have found second careers (or avocations, at any rate) blogging about their climate change skepticism.

Apparently, global warming skepticism among TV's weather forecasters really picked up steam (no pun intended) in late 2007, when John Coleman, longtime San Diego meteorologist and cofounder of The Weather Channel, issued what's been called a denier's manifesto, which states:

"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the 'research' to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus."

Whew! Dastardly scientists? Environmental whacko types? Hot stuff.