A new project from the Municipal Council of Bucharest plans a new way to make the Capital of Romania: all those who desire to get married or to register a car will have to plant a tree. “The City Hall will not officiate the marriage of the couple until it doesn’t prove that it has planted a tree. The same is the case with those who wish to register a car. The Council will designate the areas where trees will be planted. Those who want to get married or register a car will go and plant the tree in the designated areas accompanied by an employee from green spaces than the tree will be photographed and a birth certificate with the name of the tree will be issued to the “parent’s” name”, stated Robert Ionescu, vice mayor of the Capital.

According to him, the Municipal Council will designate the type of the trees that can be planted. “It won’t be planted just any type of tree, we will pick those that are resistant and beautiful from the architectural point of view”, said the vice mayor. The plan for the increase of the green space will be carried out with the help of the City Hall and Registration Bureau from the Prefecture of the Capital, according to the vice mayor.

“We will make collaboration protocols with whose from the Registration Bureau”, stated Ionescu. Asked whether they agree with this initiative, the Police spokesman stated:” Seeing the number of the cars that register in Bucharest, the Capital will have no more spaces without trees in a few years”.

Source: Cotidianul

This will lead to the increase of the price paid by consumers due to the fact that Romania’s strategy concerning electricity is based mainly on coal based electricity. Last year, 43% of the national production of electricity was coal based, 35.5% of the used coal being lignite. The first results of using large quantities of noxious combustibles have already been felt in Romania. In Julie, the price of electricity increased with 5.3% as a result of the need to purchase certificates for air pollution, however starting with 1st January, 2008, electricity will get even more expensive, one of the causes being the certificates as well as the increasing price of coal and natural gases.

The gradual elimination of free certificates
Gabriel Baleanu stated: “The lignite found here, in Romania, has little caloric power, in comparison with other European states, thus a great quantity is necessary to be used. What is more, the power plants from Romania that run on coal have an efficiency of 33% which means there is a need of structural modification of the system from the technological point of view so that efficiency level will increase over 45%.”
According to current strategies, the power plants require investments of 2.6 billion Euros before 2017, so that environmental issues are dealt with. The European Commission wants that starting with 2013 companies would no longer receive anymore free certificates, however Romania, along with other states, believe that rushing this process would result in a great increase of prices.

Source: Evenimentul Zilei

All of the products are designed to be self-sufficient - meaning if you’re power goes out or your battery dies, an item you’re relying on such as a flashlight or radio, won’t be rendered useless. And of course using natural sources of energy such as the sun (or yourself!) to keep a product working is the most eco-friendly way to go. The line of products includes solar-powered radios-turned flashlights, a self-sufficient rechargeable LED lantern, a wind-up flashlight and a wall charger for mini-USB devices. The products are a mix of the company’s own style, as well as those from companies Freeplay has formed strategic alliances with.

The developers of Freeplay seek to further expand the market for self-sufficient energy products on an international level. Check out their full range of eco-friendly energy alternatives after the jump!

The scientist, James Hansen, responsible for warning of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, warned Washington two days ago that the Earth is nearing a tipping point. He’s called for national carbon tax and accused CEOs of energy companies that they “may be guilty of crimes against humanity and nature”.

They (energy companies) are also guilty of funding and promoting contrarian views from scientists, furthering a charade that confuses the public into believing there is debate among scientists in this country, Hansen said.

“There is no debate,” he said.

James Hansens, in 1988, was the first scientist to warn the senate that he was “99 per cent certain” that humans were warming the global climate.

Two decades later, now 67 and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, his message has not changed.

“We have reached a point of planetary emergency,” he said.

Source: urban sprout - green news organic eco directory

A New Jersey engineer Mike Strizki has created a green home resulting in no more power bills ever, and not just electric bills. Strizki converts sunshine into electricity using photovoltaic panels - and then uses the electricity to wring hydrogen for fuel out of ordinary tap water. The result: For two years Strizki has bought no electricity, no gas, no fuel for his several vehicles. The only downside - an investment of just over $500,000 bucks was needed to achieve this feat of eco-modernism.

Via Popgadget

Some experts have added “re-think” to the mix, questioning the entire manufacturing process and calling for a new approach. It’s also become fashionable for organisations to add their own R’s to the mantra, like replenish, renew, respect, responsible etc.

The obvious starting point however, is to reduce the amount we buy (we’ll have less to reuse and recycle), rather than avidly recycling. Finding constructive ways to reuse materials is next. Sorting and recycling is last.

recSource: urban sprout - green news organic eco directory

Americans have a habit of framing our scientific history as a series of Great Inventors, from Eli Whitney to Thomas Edison to Afrika Bambaataa. The history books say each was prodded by Adam Smith’s invisible hand to come up with the great technological advances that have made our country a home of innovation.

There’s a problem with this mythology: sometimes there’s no invisible hand. Sometimes short-sighted government regulations give preference to bad technologies over good ones — stifling innovation and blinding us to our own ability to make progress.

Nowhere is this mythology more evident than in our energy system, the most heavily regulated and subsidized industry in the country. A host of bad regulations have made this system grossly inefficient, contributing both to global warming and to high power costs.

The US today converts fossil fuel into electricity at 33% efficiency, throwing away two-thirds of every unit of fuel we burn in cooling towers and smoke stacks. That’s the same conversion efficiency we had last year. That’s the same efficiency we had in 1980. In fact, you have to go all the way back to 1957 to find a year when the electric sector wasted more energy than they do today.

During the same period, we’ve seen automobile fuel economy skyrocket (especially on a horsepower-adjusted basis). We’ve seen massive increases in the efficiency of our electric appliances. We’ve even seen boring old steam boiler efficiency increases with modern controls, recuperators and preheaters. And yet the efficiency of electricity generation is stagnant.

It’s not stagnant because we’ve hit any fundamental limit. Indeed, studies by the US Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency have identified a whopping 200,000 MW of potential (that’s 20% of the peak power demand of the US) for proven technologies that either recover waste energy from industrials and/or cogenerate heat and electricity from a single fuel source.

The worst of these technologies is twice as fuel efficient as the current electric grid. Fully deploying that potential would not only cut CO₂ emissions by 20% — about the same as if we took every passenger car off the road — but would also cut our energy costs, simply by burning less fuel. And those are just the technologies we’ve taken the time to quantify.

So what’s holding these technologies back? Nothing more than our regulatory paradigm.

A couple of examples:

1. Our century-old electric regulatory model pays utilities a return on their capital investment, but compels them to pass along all operating costs to consumers at zero mark-up. This creates a great incentive to build capital-intensive boondoggles. It completely isolates electric utilities from the economic principles that drive “normal” businesses, wherein capital and operating cost reductions are a route to greater profits. This has conspired to make our electric sector openly hostile to efficient power generation. It explains why their efficiency hasn’t moved since 1957, and why that sector now accounts for 42% of US CO₂ emissions.
2. The Clean Air Act mandates end-of-pipe pollution control technologies that universally impose additional parasitic loads on industrials and power plants to run baghouses, catalyst beds, electro-static precipitators and any number of other technologies. All these parasitic mandates have the perverse consequence that our environmental policy mandates reduction in criteria pollution and mandates increases in CO₂ emissions. Worse, a facility that has the temerity to improve the energy efficiency of their process will almost certainly trigger New Source Review, under which they will have to come into compliance with new, more stringent permits than the one they currently operate under. These two features of the Clean Air Act conspire to make many industrials openly fearful many otherwise sensible steps to lower their greenhouse-gas signature (and lower their operating expense.)

None of this is to suggest that we should not continue to pursue technological revolutions, of course. But if those technologies bring about cheaper, cleaner, more efficient energy, they will find themselves blocked by precisely the same regulations that are keeping existing technologies out of the market. Technology is important — but regulatory reform to remove our barriers to energy efficiency is the critical path.

Source: CleanTechnica

Gretchen LeBuhn, an associate professor at San Francisco State, has launched The Great Sunflower
Project. It’s a community science project which has a goal to look
at the health of local bees and how pollination both wild and garden are being
affected. As you may know, there is great concern about the bee population
in the US, and this project is targeting bees to see how they are doing
nationwide.

To join the project, they ask you to plant a native sunflower
(and they will send you seeds) and then twice a month watch a sunflower to see
how long it takes for 5 bees to visit that one flower. The information should
help them get a picture of how bees are being affected (and what state they are
in) in the hopes of setting a plan to help them. If you don’t have a garden, the website also lists public gardens where you can observe bees.

Source: www.eatlocalchallenge.com

Currently, coffee labels are allowed to use terms like “Kona blend,” “Kona style,” or even “Kona coffee,” even if the package contains only ten percent Kona beans. The remaining 90 percent of the beans come from other regions like Brazil or Columbia.

Kona farmers are concerned that the mislabeling dilutes the integrity of this unique variety. That integrity does have value when you examine how the coffee is produced and the Kona Coffee Farmers mission to protect Kona farmers’ economic interests in 100% Kona coffee, to protect the Kona coffee heritage, and to seek greater legal protection of the Kona coffee name.

I contacted Christine Sheppard of the Kona Coffee Farmers Association to find out more about this unique variety. Interview follows the jump.

EDB: Are workers paid a fair wage in producing the coffee?

People hired to work and pick in the Kona Coffee Belt are in high demand. They work under US labor laws and receive U.S. level wages. Pickers, for example, last year received at least 50 cents per pound of cherries picked. A diligent and practiced hand can pick 400 lbs per day at the height of harvest.

That $200/day possibly exceeds any agricultural wage for seasonal work anywhere in the world. At one time it was proposed to set an hourly rate for pickers, but the pickers objected, they like the rate per pound as then the level of compensation is up to them, and there are many friendly rivalries in the coffee fields as to who can pick the most (and make the most money) including an official picking competition in November.

Most of our coffee is grown on family farms of 2-10 acres. Our farmers sell their coffee to processors, or sell roasted coffee direct to customers all over the world.

EDB: Is authentic Kona coffee grown in a sustainable method? Please describe how and why.

This is a big subject and we break it into four sections that seem to mean most to people… Habitat protection, rainforests, migratory birds, and shade grown.

HABITAT PROTECTION

The district where Kona coffee grows was first cleared of native forest and planted over a thousand years ago. It has stayed in cultivation ever since. Ancient Hawaiians long ago replaced the native forest habitat with their subsistence plantations of breadfruit, taro, sweet potatoes, coconuts, sugar cane, `awa (kava), and paper mulberry. Indeed, those ancient crops may still be seen here and there scattered among the coffee, macadamia nut and other modern crops. As coffee cultivation expands today in response to the specialty coffee boom, it typically moves onto neglected existing coffee lands, macadamia orchards, or old pastures.

RAINFORESTS

There are very good reasons why coffee in Kona is little cultivated at the rainforest elevations above 2500 feet. Coffee is not a rainforest crop. Coffee prefers climates with a dry season. When farmers occasionally try to expand onto “rainforest” stands of native ohi`a and tree fern that dominate higher, wetter elevations above 3000 feet, they face discouraging practical difficulties. The municipal water system seldom serves such high elevations. It is cloudier and rain falls year round, so the coffee trees tend to bloom repeatedly and bear cherries all year long.

Harvesting in the rain is cold and miserable. Fermentation of pulped cherry is slowed by chilly air, and drying demands transport to decks at lower, more reliably sunny elevations or resort to costly mechanical dryers.

The long-standing threats to rainforest habitats in Hawaii today - ranching and industrial agriculture - continue to decline. Kona coffee grows on ancient farmlands that have been cultivated for many centuries.

MIGRATORY BIRDS

“Bird Friendly” in third-world terms means that farmers have restored the forest canopy as a necessary habitat for migrating birds. No migratory species frequent Hawaii’s mountain forests or coffee farms, and none are threatened by coffee planting, or any other kind of tropical horticulture. Hawaii’s migratory birds  are all shore birds that fly down from Arctic lands for the winter.

One of them, the Pacific golden plover also likes large open spaces: lawns, pastures, and golf courses. Many colorful birds live in the Kona Coffee Belt, but none are seasonal migrants. They are resident year-round.

SHADE GROWN

The concern about shade trees in coffee groves relates primarily to their value as a habitat for migrating birds, along with reputedly superior flavor associated with shade-grown coffee. The Kona coffee belt is blessed with shade from clouds borne upslope on the afternoon sea breezes, especially in the warm summer months. But nonetheless, as you might expect on small family farms, there are, in fact, all kinds of trees growing together with coffee in Kona.

EDB: Please explain your commitment to preserving this Kona-specific variety any key issues you are struggling with such as the use of “Kona blend” on labels, and how this issue has  impacted your business.

GMO

GMO coffee is a huge issue with us. I attach our KCFA position statement on GMO, but here is a precis. GMO coffee has the potential to completely eliminate Kona as a gourmet product. The Specialty Coffee Association of America does not consider any GMO product a specialty coffee. Our markets in Europe, Japan, Australia etc, and many of our markets in the US would not buy it.

A significant proportion of our Kona product is organic, and any taint of GMO immediately disqualifies it as organic. It would not be the 200 year-old stock for which we are famous. Even a trial planting in our island would contaminate us as coffee cross-fertilizes.

This is the ONE issue on which ALL of the coffee organizations in Hawaii agree, and have formed a coalition to fight GMO coffee. While many of us (me, personally, included) abhor GMO in all forms, even those of our farmers and processors who support GM in other crops are fighting GMO coffee because it is a pure marketing disaster.

KONA BLEND
The other big issue for us is the “10% blend labeling law”. This is where processors are allowed by Hawaii law to put the name “Kona blend” on packages that contain only 10% Kona and 90% foreign beans that are not usually even identified.

Kona blends confuse consumers that they are real Kona, just lower priced. But they contain mostly 90% foreign beans, and the price you pay because the name “Kona” is on the package is far too high for these cheap foreign beans.

Every time a coffee drinker drinks a blend and thinks it is Kona and tastes a disappointing cup no different from any other coffee it damages our reputation.

The most famous instance is when Consumer Reports compared Kona coffees, and reported that most were disappointing and tasted harsh. When we growers, in horror, looked at what they were tasting, more than two thirds of them were Kona blends, and labeled so, but even the experts at Consumer Reports had not realized that a “Kona blend” is not a blend of Kona’s, but a blend of 10% Kona with other foreign beans.

You have to really WANT to read the label to figure it out. This damage to our Kona reputation, plus the flood of cheap coffees labeled “Kona”, are keeping our prices artificially low, especially to the small farmer who typically sells his cherry straight from the tree to the blender. The price per pound that the blender pays to the farmer hit a high in 1997 that was ALMOST an economic return, then the blenders forced the price down, and it has not yet risen back up to those 1997 levels.

For the past 3 sessions of the Hawaii State Legislature (2006, 2007,and 2008) we have endorsed and worked for Truth-in-Labeling bills which would have:

1. Required a minimum of 75% Kona coffee in any package labeled as a “Kona Blend”; and
2. Required clear country/region of origin labeling of the non-Kona portion of “Kona Blends”. Despite a factual finding by the State Legislature in 2007 that “existing labeling requirements for Kona coffee causes consumer fraud and confusion and degrades the ‘Kona coffee’ name”, and despite strong supporting resolutions from the Hawaii County Council and the Hawaii Democratic Party, the Honolulu-based corporate blenders were again this year able to bottle up in committee and kill the Truth-in-Labeling bills in the legislative backrooms.

The blenders have a strong incentive to protect the enormous profit margins they make from selling what amounts to commodity coffee at specialty coffee prices because of the deceptive use of the “Kona“ name.

We recognize the political and financial power of the Honolulu blenders, but with help from the broader coffee community we will continue to cast as much sunlight and attention as possible on what most fair-minded observers see as a basic fair marketing issue and much needed protection for Kona’s coffee farmers.

This is the issue that prompted our lady farmers to bare-all to gets some attention. NO other product that we know of suffers this same fate legally the way Kona coffee does. Napa, Sonoma, Vidalia, Maui, etc all protect their geographic origin products.

If you would like to learn more about the issue, purchase 100% Kona coffee direct from the farmers, or get a calendar, you can visit the

Source: Eat. Drink. Better.

Among the decidedly ungreen luxuries I allow myself is a small collection of magazine subscriptions, one of which is Gourmet - the Conde Nast foodie rag that is, to be honest, hit or miss. But this month’s issue was a favorite of mine, mostly because of a moving account by two young chefs of a trip they took to Madani Halal butcher in New York in search of a goat to serve at their summer barbecue. The chefs - Ian Knauer and Alan Sytsma - picked out a grass-fed, free-range goat and watched as the butcher thanked the animal for its life and then killed it in what is considered the most painless way possible. The chefs reported back that watching their animal die added a level of responsibility to their cooking. Not only did they want to create a delicious meal for its own sake, they felt a need to honor the sacrifice of the animal’s life.

This type of thinking is an integral part of the current movement towards more ethical meat consumption that we often discuss on this blog. Consider below the similarities between Zibah - the Halal slaughter method - and members of the slow food movement. This similarity is not lost on Riaz, the owner of Madani, who told Gourmet that he believes Halal butchery can help many Americans to accept Islam through shared eating values.

According to the Halal Food Authority the following conditions must be met in order for meat to be considered passable:

• Animal must be alive and healthy at time of slaughter (no downers)
• Slaughter must be done in quickest, most painless method: cutting the jugular, carotid artery and windpipe in one single motion
• Animal must not be stunned or abused prior to slaughter (such abuse would render the animal “dead,” disobeying the first rule)
• Animals must not be fed anything containing meat (grass and grain fed)
• A muslim must perform the slaughter while reciting the shahada, as a prayer of dedication.

Many of us will recognize these considerations in our own choices. Not only are these healthier, more sanitary conditions, the elements of gratitude and respect are essential to a thoughtful approach to eating. Much of my own family keeps Kosher, which is very similar to Halal and I long considered it an archaic, even exclusionary practice. I wondered why otherwise contemporary, scientifically-minded people would adopt ancient sanitation laws that prohibit them from socializing over meals with friends. But the mindfulness advocated by these laws need not apply only to the religious - we can all benefit from this strong niche in the meat industry.

Given the high premium put on ethically-raised meat at farmer’s markets and in health stores, it is a relief to know that consumers can get such meat from Halal butchers at a reasonable price. In doing so, we are supporting the ethics behind the practice of Halal butchery and also supporting independent and community-oriented butchers - a dying breed in the era of pre-cut chops in the supermarkets and megamarts that dominate our country’s food consumption.

Source: Eat. Drink. Better.

The reason that I am concerned is that I believe that high oil prices are hurting nearly everyone and the pain will increase as time goes on. The hands on the controls, however, are feeling no pain.

The Organization of Oil Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an internationally recognized cartel established in September, 1960 that holds well publicized meetings on a regular basis to discuss production allocations that are specifically designed to maintain a market price that members agree best meets their internal and external needs. Many of the country representatives to that meeting have spent lengthy careers thinking deeply about oil prices and how best to manage them to benefit the people who send them to the meetings and pay their generous salaries.

Oil market controllers have experienced a number of ups and downs and worked diligently to master the many price influencing tools at their disposal. Those tools may be a bit blunt, but they can be effective if wielded with skill by experienced manipulators. OPEC supplies about 40% of the total world’s oil and has an impact that is disproportionate even against that large total. Its decision are closely watched and often widely respected by large suppliers that are not members. All oil suppliers recognize that they have a very special commodity that responds to even tiny differences between daily supply and daily demand.

During the decades that I have been interested in energy as a study topic, I have heard or read hundreds of reports in oil industry trade publications that indicate the respect given to OPEC as a disciplined cartel that does all suppliers a service by keeping prices at profitable levels.

Though traders can store oil, the volume of daily consumption is so vast that even a 1% over supply situation can fill up storage areas in just a matter of months while a 1% deficit can result in significant shortages in some locations. Like a hot air balloon, there is a potential for a disastrous crash with an inexperienced or poorly coordinated crew, but there is also the potential for a very pleasant ride for those who know what they are doing.

Unfortunately, the basket under an oil fed hot air balloon is not very large and the number of people who benefit from an oil price balloon that never comes back to earth will be rather small. I see few prospects, however, that those of us left on earth will be invited to share in the benefits of the ride any time soon. It is way too much fun for the people in the basket to collect massive quantities of money from the rest of us who seemingly have no means of forcing that balloon to return to earth.

Recently, an oil minister from an OPEC member told the world that his country saw no reason to increase supplies since demand destruction was already working to put supply and demand into balance and a Russian oil and gas executive gleefully predicted that oil prices would reach $250 per barrel in 2009.

At my own water cooler, the objection that I get to my line of thinking is that oil prices experienced a collapse during the mid 1980s and remained low for about 15 years. They tell me that proves that a period of high prices will almost inevitably be followed by a period of low prices caused by the combination of new supplies encouraged by high prices and reduced demand caused by a reaction to the high prices. Their interpretation of oil price history is that the conservation efforts install a long term change in consumer habits. Apparently they think that OPEC recognizes this and will reduce prices in time to avoid a long term loss of market share.

The difficulty that I have in accepting this interpretation is that low energy prices through the 1980s and 1990s were driven not by a reduction in demand, but by a relentless increase in the available supply of useful energy. Most of the new supply came into the market from sources outside of OPEC.

Total energy use did not fall after the oil shocks of the 1970s, but the annual rate of increase slowed. Total supply actually increased substantially as new production areas like the North Slope of Alaska and the North Sea came on line at the same time as new nuclear power plants added the energy equivalent of 12 million barrels of oil per day to the world supply.

Today there are no major production areas that are beginning operation and there are not any massive new nuclear plant programs with plants ready to connect to the grid. The time delays required under current laws are going to make it difficult to change supply rapidly enough to make much difference for at least a few years.

We are in for a long slog of high prices - unless the world’s political leadership takes action to enable massive new supplies to reach the market more quickly than is currently predicted. Jawboning might just work, but it is a long shot. It just might be that the balloon will remain aloft for a long time without popping or even leaking very much.

Source: Red, Green, and Blue

With a tank of fuel for the average family car costing close to $150, high fuel prices have effectively acted as one very large carbon tax - and effective they have been. Britons have reduced fuel consumption by 20% during the past year, driving less, and driving more slowly at the same time. Sales of fuel efficient vehicles are at an all time high.

But unfortunately this is not politically sustainable. The aforementioned protest is hurting the government’s popularity badly as disposable incomes are eroded by fuel bills. Having previously made broad promises to reduce Britain’s CO2 output by up to 80% by 2050 in a bid to profess world leadership on Climate Change, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been carefully avoiding any kind of statement on environmental targets during previous months. Meanwhile Britain is set to miss most of it’s legally binding and far less ambitious climate change objectives anyway.

In fact, Brown is now heading in completely the opposite direction with a visit Saudi Arabia this weekend in a bid to convince the Saudi’s to increase oil production by 500,000 barrels a day. Quite how an increase in fossil fuel output tallies with targets to reduce CO2 emissions remains unexplained.

The problem is, that whilst the direct impact of higher prices is highly effective in changing consumer behaviour, politicians need a few carrots to go with the sticks. But since green alternatives such as the development of public transport are prohibitively expensive in densely populated countries like Britain, carrots are in short supply.

One system that has never failed to supply carrots is market based capitalism, and baring any fundamental change in Western governmental organisation we are going to need a market based system to correct the fundamental reliance of our economy on oil. This means that we need to take cap and trade seriously.

Although cap and trade has been described as ‘just another tax’ by it’s many detractors, there are some fundamental differences. Yes, consumer prices will rise in the short term - investment capital required to implement low emissions technology has to come from somewhere. But cap and trade will bring the market to bear on emissions, providing a new competitive vector for firms by starting a race to develop efficient technologies - meaning lower prices and higher profits.

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown’s opposition are making the most out of the situation. “We can’t afford not to go green”, says Conservative Party leader David Cameron, adding that “the era of cheap oil is well and truly over”.

Here Cameron has a distinct advantage - when voters go to the polls in next year’s UK general elections, as the incumbent Brown will be judged primarily on performance - a performance that has presided over some rather bumpy economic times. Cameron, meanwhile, will be judged on potential - the potential to make positive changes, whilst being in the handy situation of being able to blame Brown’s Labour government for the pain that voters are currently feeling.

The only problem is that Cameron hasn’t yet been able to tell us what those positive changes actually are, with no details emerging of any kind of game plan for a green British future.

If the cheap oil era is well and truly over then a game plan that looks beyond the simple political solution of taxing relatively well-off motorists is going to be urgently needed - urgently needed to prevent current protest from turning into dangerous instability.

Source: Red, Green, and Blue

This was a big week for our Presidential candidates and energy policy, specifically domestic oil drilling. With the recent decision by a House Sub-committee to continue the ban on more offshore drilling, spirited discussion regarding domestic oil has sprung up everywhere. This week John McCain extended his support for offshore drilling, stating that he thinks the ban should be lifted however he also made the statement that he opposes any drilling of ANWR. Barack Obama opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling and ANWR drilling.

As Americans, we have a lot to think about. The fact is we do have domestic oil that we are not extracting. Geologists report we have billions of barrels in both the Bakkan Shale and ANWR. Why is John McCain in favor of lifting the offshore drilling ban while at the same time opposed to ANWR drilling? Is it politically convenient? Is it a possible attempt to satisfy both sides of a debate? Why is Barack Obama opposed to all new domestic drilling? Despite the fact that offshore drilling is technologically at its best, we have other options in other areas.

There is very strong opposition to opening any new domestic areas for drilling oil. However to what extent are we, as a nation, willing to go? We continue to import oil and there is no indication that this will cease. In the Anchorage Daily News online, Charles Krauthammer, a Washington Post Columnist, states:

“The entire Arctic refuge is one-third the size of the United Kingdom (which includes Scotland and Wales). The drilling site would be one-seventh the size of Manhattan Island. The footprint is tiny. Moreover, forbidding drilling there does not prevent despoliation. It merely exports it. The crude oil we’re not getting from the Arctic we import instead from places like the Niger Delta, where millions live and where the resulting pollution and oil spillages poison the lives of many of the world’s most wretchedly poor.”

Strong environmental policies coupled with technological advances for extraction can give us access to the massive amounts of resources at our fingertips. This does not mean we have to deplete our resources, however, with good stewardship we can use what is ours. Acquiring our own oil is something that should be realistically explored from all fronts instead of continually shut down. Energy Independence will benefit all Americans and it will take the use of our own traditional resources such as oil, in addition to a passionate pursuit of alternative energy sources to accomplish this goal.

Source: Red, Green, and Blue

Nothing like solving one problem while creating another. I can understand that he may hate the sun for what it does to his pasty white skin. And that he may hate the wind for messing up his well placed comb-over–but if he could just look past all that and see that both the sun and the wind could provide our country free, clean energy he’d have many more fans in the REAL world.

Could it be the one time cost for a wind turbine and/or solar panels that’s keeping the energy industry, John, and many of his right-wing good-old-boys from falling in love with the right alternative? Without the option for a wide base of customers to gouge repeatedly (ie. fuel costs) they all may be thinking–what’s the point?

For the record, if the choices were coal or nuclear–I’d choose nuclear. But those aren’t the choices–wind and solar are viable clean alternatives. Especially when we, as a society, learn to conserve and re-use more and spend a lot less.

Source: Red, Green, and Blue

1. Natural Disasters Provide People with a Greater Respect & Appreciation for Nature

I currently live in Peru, and nowhere else has it been more obvious that natural disasters have influenced how people view and think about nature’s power. There are few people I have met in my travels in Peru who believe that they can control nature. Earthquakes are common in Peru, and have had a devastating effect here.

In 1970, perhaps the worst modern earthquake in the western hemisphere occurred in Peru, killing an estimated 70,000 people and leaving over half a million people homeless. The Peruvian Highlands city of Huaraz, where I currently live, was leveled. A city about an hour north of Huaraz called Yungay, was swept over in seconds by an avalanche triggered atop Mt. Huascaran. Among the 18,000 people living in that city, almost all were killed in seconds. My wife’s family were among a handful of survivors in a small town called San Marcos (also nearby) that was completely devastated by the earthquake.

I bring all of these things up, because I have personally witnessed how much the people in the Highlands Region of Peru, people like my parents-in-law, have ritualized their respect of nature into their culture. Last month in Huaraz, a festival in honor of the earthquake patron saint was held for a week in entirety. In traditional dress, every day local citizens marched through the city dancing and playing instruments in honor of El Senor de la Soledad (Our Lord of Solitude). Each smaller community in the region also holds events and dances of these kinds.

I doubt that these kinds of cultural understandings and respect for nature’s power are unique to Peru. In addition to providing people with a greater respect for nature, natural disasters probably also build cultural bonds through a shared experience, and consequently therefore strengthen community ties and heritage.

2. Natural Disasters Give Communities a Chance to Improve Infrastructure and Re-Prioritize Community Needs

In regard to this potentially positive aspect to natural disasters, it’s hard not to think of New Orleans, Louisiana, and other places in the American South that were devastated by Hurricane Katrina in 2006 2005.* I’m not extremely familiar with how much progress has been made, but I remember reading about countless opportunities that were presented after Katrina to do things like rebuild shoddy homes, provide new jobs and health services to impoverished communities, and improve natural, ecological buffers so that a disaster on this scale could not happen again. I even remember that Brad Pitt received some publicity for co-sponsoring a sustainable design competition to help rebuild the city in a positive manner.

In Huaraz, Peru after the 1970 earthquake, buildings were constructed with a greater emphasis on anti-seismic measures. The adobe buildings that typified Huaraz prior to the earthquake did not tend to survive the earth’s movements. Now in Huaraz, beauty takes a backseat to safety, as the buildings and city are not extremely attractive. But these improvements to buildings show that the people of Huaraz have re-prioritized their own safety over aesthetics. The Peruvian government also in response has built preventative retaining walls and dams around and near high alpine lakes. Overflow from the lakes was largely responsible for causing huge mudslides immediately after the 1970 earthquake.

3. Research Has Shown That Natural Disasters Might Have Some Positive Ecological Effects

Did you know that hurricanes and tropical storms help distribute the Earth’s heat? Without the transfer of this heat from the Tropics to the Earth’s poles, climates might get totally out of whack. Large storms and the tremendous amounts of rainfall they bring with them are also beneficial to ecosystems and human agricultural needs. Researchers from Duke University’s School of Environment and Earth Sciences also say that without hurricanes, barrier islands on coast lines and their ecosystems would not survive. Of course while these are some positive benefits, it should be noted that hurricanes and the flooding they can cause might affect ecosystems negatively and, of course, harm the lives of a significant amount of people.

Fires are another natural disaster that can benefit ecosystems. They can eliminate unwanted invasive plants from certain ecosystems (but can also help spread them), enrich soils with fresh nutrients, and encourage greater plant diversity. Animals are also sometimes attracted to the new growth in fresh burn areas. Some plants are even dependent upon fire for their seeds to sprout in the long-term, and use fire to their advantage.

Are There More Positive Things to Say About Natural Disasters?

As I wrote in the very beginning, my intention is not to dismiss and disrespect the human suffering caused by natural disasters. But seeing as that almost every day the media reports depressing news and stories about natural disasters, it seems like a good thing to consider the potential positive sides to these events. In addition to the three major benefits I have written about ( 1. people gaining greater appreciation for nature, 2. the chance to rebuild communities positively and re-prioritize needs and 3. the potential benefits to ecosystems), are there other positive aspects to natural disasters that you can think of? If so, please share your thoughts in the comments section.

Source: Planetsave

It is a complicated situation we’ve put ourselves in. Beyond the water quality and air quality problems we’ve had for more than a century, we are now facing global climate change, there is concern about ‘peak oil’ and all of the ramifications related to that issue (including drilling for oil in ecological world treasures), and there are increasing concerns about the sustainability of our global food systems and how we are going to feed our future generations. Cities and stores are just now starting to ban plastic bags, realizing after a few decades that a product that will not disappear for thousands of years should not be reproduced.

We are facing very complicated issues that are a result of the very unnatural and complicated things and systems we have created in recent times.

How do we address these problems and concerns?

As Albert Einstein said a few years ago,

“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”

We keep wanting to find the next technological breakthrough that is going to bring us out of this mess. We keep wanting to buy the next green product that allows us to live the same lifestyle while feeling that we are saving the earth (our future generations and fellow creatures really, since the earth will survive). We keep wanting to look out for the solutions to these problems that were created by looking out in the first place and not being satisfied with the way things were.

We rush around everywhere, live busy lives, and “have to” drive or eat pre-packaged foods to support our lifestyle.

We feel like it’s alright to drive since we have a hybrid, but we emit more greenhouse gases because we drive more than we would in a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry. (Check out the top 17 reasons why the bicycle is the most popular vehicle in the world today.)

We want to live our complicated, modern-day lives and think that it is possible to do this and save the world as well if we have a green stamp on all of our products.

As implied above, we have to change our consciousness if we are going to solve the problems that we’ve inherited. We have to simplify our lives.

We have to say, I am going to live in a place where I don’t need a car and can get to work and the stores I need to go to on foot, bicycle, or public transit.

We have to say, I’m going to give myself enough time in the day to make meals out of non-processed foods.

We have to say, I am not going to load myself up with so many meetings and responsibilities and hobbies that I cannot live without a car and cannot take some time out to make my own dinner.

We have to change our lives, not the brand of our products. (Although, please do that as well!)

We have to realize that it is our lifestyles that are the problem.

Green represents life.

And it is our lives that have to be green,

not the products we consume and acquire.

Source: Planetsave

Step Right Up And Be Amazed

It struck me today that our fearless leaders, would-be’s, and corporate giants seem to think we’re all a bunch of rubes gathered outside a carnival sideshow, leaning on the barker’s every word.

Urging Congress to lift its ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, our fearless leader, you know, President Bush, told lawmakers, “There is no excuse for delay“.

It got worse, “Families across the country are looking to Washington for a response.”  Gimme a break.

In response, House Democrats, in a news conference, propose nationalization of refineries, a way to better control the flow of oil supply. Stay tuned, this will be one hot potato.

One of our presidential wanna-be’s, Sen John McCain (R-AZ), has jumped on the bandwagon, even though he’s on record supporting the moratorium on drilling.  Flip-flop, what do we believe?

The Senator also proposed a gas tax holiday.  Woop.  Arizona made it clear the other day that it won’t happen here, and I doubt the idea will ever get off the ground.

Not only has McCain changed his tune, he’s asking for 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030, and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds to “make clean coal a reality.”

You can bet that’ll get my vote; for Obama.

Florida’s Governor, Charlie Crist has gone on record, changing his position on offshore drilling.  Gas prices too high, we must do something now.

Drill Now?  How Long Will It Take To Get Some Relief?

Think about it for a minute.  There are approximatley 68 million acres of offshore waters under lease by oil companies at this moment, but none are under development.

Let’s say the oil companies decide to get busy and help us poor folks get out of the gas crunch.  By the time they set up new platforms, drill, recover and ship crude to refineries, my great-grandchildren will be voting.

How about that for a quick fix?

See my point?  It truly is a dog and pony show, smoke and mirrors, whatever, but let’s look further.

Big Oil’s Take On The Problem

In this case, “BIG OIL” is Chevron Corp, whose CEO David O’Reilly told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that big oil isn’t to blame for high gas prices.

It’s a matter of supply and demand, that’s what we’ve been hearing all along, and it makes as much sense as anything.

Domestic production of crude, according to O’Reilly, has declined over the years, putting America further in debt to foreign oil producers.

Meanwhile, Chevron claims to be reinvesting it’s $18.7 billion profit from last year in new supplies.  He didn’t say what constituted “supplies.”

Saudi’s To Increase Production

The world’s leading producer of oil, Saudi Arabia, plans to increase production by 200,000 barrels a day through July.  That would bring production up to 9.7 million barrels a day.

The U.S. alone consumes an estimated 20 million barrels a day, roughly half of that amount is imported.  I doubt the 200,000 barrel increase in Saudi production will make a huge impact on the world’s thirst for oil, or bring relief to high prices in America.

The rest of the OPEC nations have decided not to make a committment until their meeting on Sept 9th.  History has shown they usually follow Saudi Arabia’s lead, but given the instability and tensions in that area, they may just take the money and enjoy.

Environmentalists Are Weakening

I read with great amusement this article in the LA Times, inferring that the environmental movement is now on the defensive.

It’s worth a read, still more of the same as listed above.

What I find most interesting, in this time of environmental awareness, is the call for more oil out of one side of the mouth, while the other side speaks boldly of developing alternative energy sources.

So there it is folks, step right up and get your ticket now, the only cost:  A gallon of gas for the greatest show on earth.

Welcome to the circus, are you having any fun, aren’t you glad you came?

CNN’S “Fueling America” site..interesting.

Source: Planetsave

For a lot of years, I’ve respected and admired Arizona Senator John McCain, and even though he is a Republican, he seemed to be more moderate than his right-wing compatriots.

That changed today when I read that he has proposed construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.  Adding insult to injury, he told a Missouri State University audience that he’d pledge $2 billion a year in federal funds to make clean coal a reality.  All in the name of reducing dependence on foreign oil and fostering a cleaner environment.

Here we go again with the nuclear crap

He tells the worn out tale of reactors being clean and non-polluting.

Interestingly, and certainly not surprisingly, he didn’t mention anything about cleaning up the messes left by earlier uranium mining.  Nor did he propose on how to get rid of, store, neutralize or make safe, the huge stockpile of nuclear waste piling up every day.  And let’s not forget the environmental damage to be done by mining more uranium to feed those reactors.  He gave that subject the same brush-off every nuclear energy proponent does, with the statement that more needs to be done to safely transport and store spent materials.

Don’t let anyone try to tell you the in-situ leaching process is environmentally clean.  Being an underground process, it has, under certain conditions, the ability to contaminate ground water.

45 more reactors and “clean coal”, what a wonderful promise for our future.

Source: Planetsave

I just learned last week that in March, Seventh Generation, Method, and other companies that produced green cleaning products were under scrutiny by the Organic Consumers Association. When testing around a hundred “cosmetic, personal care and household cleaning formulas, [the Association] found that nearly 50% of them contained detectable levels of 1,4-dioxane, which is known to cause cancer in lab animals.” Method, Planet Ultra and Seventh Generation’s “natural” dish cleaning products were among those products that tested positive. All manufacturer’s who tested for 1,4 were asked to remove their “organic” and “natural” labels or they’d face a lawsuit. Just when I thought I was cleaning consciously, I have to go through another round of making change in my lifestyle.

My confusion about what to buy got even greater this week when I found out California was taking more “organic” companies to court. Avalon (Alba), Nutribiotic and Whole Foods are all facing penalties for producing products containing 1,4-dioxane, too. Present in most common bath/body/cleaning products, 1,4-dixoane is not only a carcinogen but has been shown to cause liver and kidney damage simply by “breathing, ingesting” or touching it.

If you’re wondering, like I was, who is a safe choice to buy these days, Burt’s Bees, Clorox Green Works and Dr. Bronner’s all tested 1,4 free. See the results of the 1,4 test here.

Source: Planetsave

An Open Letter to Senator John McCain, Presumptive Republican Presidential Candidate

his hit me the other day; how does the Republican Presidential Candidate-in-Waiting view the possible mining of uranium just 3 miles from the Grand Canyon?

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) knows the canyon well, he’s reportedly hiked it a number of times, knows where the only uranium mine that operated there is located, yet has said nothing about the 1000 or more permits being sought to explore for uranium near the park.  I’ve searched his Senate website, news reports on the issue and his name is nowhere to be seen.  Why is that?

It’s even more puzzling, since he called for 45 new nuclear reactors in America within the next two decades.  Where will they get the fuel needed to operate those plants, from mines bordering the Grand Canyon and other sites in national forest areas?

And does he feel it’s safe to mine so close to the Colorado River?

What about the radioactive waste they will leave behind?

This is your state Senator McCain, the one you have represented well during your terms in office, are you going to abandon America’s crown jewel for some special interests?

Open letter to Senator John McCain.

• Do you approve of uranium mining in the Grand Canyon area, and in five western states where an estimated 43,000 new claims have been filed ?  Some of those areas are near Arches National Park, Capitol Reef National Park and Canyonlands National Park in Utah.  And what about the Dolores River Canyon in Colorado?
• Do you support revising the 1872 General Mining Law that allows companies to exploit minerals from public lands without paying a cent for the privilege, and then leaving their messes for the taxpayer to clean up?
• Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), has introduced a “Resolution of the Committee on Natural Resources, United States House of Representatives“, calling for the Secretary of the Interior “to immediately withdraw 1 million acres of federal land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park from further claims under the 1872 General Mining Law.”
• The authority is derived from Section 204(e), (PDF page 9) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act which allows such action in what is termed “an extreme emergency“.  The procedure, according to Congressman Grijalva’s news release, was last invoked by the late Arizona Congressman Morris K Udall.
• Will you support this action, and immediately contact the Secretary of the Interior in support of this resolution?
• Do you believe that the in-situ leaching process is without danger to the environment?
• Do you believe that if mining is allowed, that the Colorado River and smaller tributaries will be safe from radiation contamination?  As you well know, the Colorado River supplies water to two major cities in Arizona, Phoenix and Tucson, not to mention Las Vegas, NV, and Southern California.
• Are you willing to take that risk?
• Are you in favor of licensing and completion of the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada?

In all due respect, Senator, some of these questions require a “yes” or “no” answer.  I do hope you will give me, a registered voter and one of your constituents, and everyone concerned with this issue, the appropriate response.

You should also know, I’m sending a copy of this article to Sen. Barack Obama, asking him to respond to the same questions, and to Congressman Raul Grijalva, the Representative in my district, to show my support for sanity as it applies to nuclear concerns not only in Arizona, but America as well.

Thank you, Mr. McCain for your attention.  I know you’re busy, but I would like to hear from you personally instead of a “spokesperson”, after all, this is a very important issue.

Source: Planetsave

Why Wind Power Might be a Perfect Fit for Many Communities in Peru

Last year, a collaborative project was undertaken by several organizations to bring wind power to a small village in Peru. It was designed as a practical experiment to understand whether or not using small wind turbines might provide for an efficient, cost-efficient means to provide electricity to communities without electricity in rural areas of Peru. Approximately 70% of Peru’s rural communities lack electricity, according to Green Empowerment, an American non-profit organization that worked with Soluciones Prácticas (Practical Action) to implement the project. Many of these places are inaccessible to traditional means of obtaining electricity, and for this reason — wind — a free natural resource, might provide an excellent solution for helping to power some of these communities.

Alumbre, Peru with a population of around 132 people presented itself as an excellent place to test out the idea that wind power could help bring electricity to many new places in Peru. Anna Garwood, who is the Latin America Project Manager for Green Empowerment, explains that “Alumbre is located at about 3800 meters above sea level (~ 12500 feet). It’s above the tree line, and so there’s really little vegetation and a lot of wind.”

The Wind Turbines in Alumbre Provide Electricity for Homes, a School, Cell Phone Charging, and Even a Radio Station

To say that this experimental project has been a success so far would be an understatement. Last year 21 homes in Alumbre were equipped with 100-watt wind turbines that power their homes, and the village’s school was powered with a 500-watt turbine. The wind turbines store energy into what are known as “deep cycle” batteries, and the batteries when fully charged can potentially provide energy to homes for up to three days. The batteries need to be replaced every 3-4 years, and for this reason each family with a turbine must contribute to a battery replacement fund on a monthly basis. They pay about 10 nuevo soles each (~ $3 American), a sum that’s less than what most families were previously spending each month on candles and kerosene for lamps.

In addition to school age children being able to do their homework more reliably at night, people are finding activities like sewing, carpentry, and traditional weaving to be easier at night with electricity as well. One more additional benefit is that there is less smoke in their houses from candles and kerosene lamps, which is associated with eye and respiratory health issues.

The town’s school also now has lights, and can power two computers, as well as a television and DVD player for educational videos on everything from algebra to history. The wind systems also charge cellular phones. “One exciting and unexpected result is that now people from nearby communities are walking to Alumbre, and paying a small fee to charge their cellular phones. So the wind turbines have really improved peoples’ ability to communicate with the outside world,” says Garwood.

In fact, one very creative family decided to use some of their wind energy to set up a small radio station. The station has a range of about 50 kilometers (~ 30 miles) and broadcasts music and announcements. It is another way that by harnessing the power of the wind, the ability to communicate over long distances has become easier in this remote area of Peru.

So What Happens If the Wind Turbines Break? Who Fixes Them?

One important aspect of Green Empowerment’s mission is not only to help provide clean, alternative energy to communities in need, but to also provide those communities with the capacity to solve problems and partner with other organizations so that they are empowered in the future. In Alumbre, this empowerment and capacity building was facilitated in three key ways.

As the wind turbines were installed, a group of 8 interested individuals in the community were provided with training to repair and maintain the wind turbines. They also received training in the business and technical aspects of operating the community’s new electrical system. Once the wind power system was functional, the individuals all took a written test to assess their knowledge of the operation. In combination with this test, the community leaders selected who they thought had shown the most interest and effort in helping with the project, and had good standing in the community in general. Once an individual was selected to serve as the principal facilitator of the wind operation, he was given a uniform and helmet. In the words of Anna Garwood, this helps “to put forth a professional image and show that this venture is on par with any other electrical company.” The previously mentioned monthly tariffs feed a fund for maintenance and battery replacement as well as financial support for the micro-business operator for his ongoing work on the project.

The second way that the project team ensured that Alumbre was empowered, was by selecting locally-made appropriate technology. Soluciones Prácticas-ITDG, who had been working since 1998 to build locally-made small wind turbines, designed the technology for the Alumbre wind power system. They then taught a small Peruvian company how to fabricate the turbines. All of the materials they use can be found locally with ease, making it much easier to replace and repair the turbines if necessary at a low cost. Soluciones Prácticas eventually discovered that the best material to use for the blades of wind turbine was fiberglass. Garwood expains that “the weight, durability, and ability to form a material at the right angles all make a difference in how efficiently the blades will work on a wind turbine.”

The final way that Green Empowerment and Soluciones Prácticas attempt to ensure success in Alumbre is by understanding how the community is responding to their newly acquired wind power, and by attempting to understand the changes it will create in the fabric of the community over time. Soluciones Prácticas’ sociologists and engineers spent months working closely with the community from project conception to installation, management, and follow-up. By having this information, it will allow the project team to better understand if people in Alumbre are supporting the project appropriately and contributing to its success. It might also help determine which factors are important for ensuring a community’s support– a key element for making the decision to implement similar wind power system projects in other Peruvian communities. This social science aspect of the project is ongoing, as is the installation of more wind turbines in Alumbre.

What the Future Holds for Alumbre and Peru, and How You Can Get Involved

Next month, 14 additional 100-watt turbines will be installed in Alumbre. The houses with children in Alumbre were prioritized, and were those that were provided with wind power last year. An additional 500-watt turbine will also be installed later this year to power lights for the town’s medical clinic. It also will provide enough energy so that a refrigerator can be used to store important medical supplies like vaccines.

Green Empowerment and Soluciones Prácticas have implemented many other projects in Peru. These projects have involved installing solar power and micro hydro systems in others communities, as these forms of alternative energy seemed more feasible and practical in those places. More projects will undoubtedly occur if success levels are high with these projects, and also the wind power project in Alumbre.

What is perhaps the most impressive thing of all about the wind power project in Alumbre is that it only cost $47647 to buy all of the equipment for the project. In the grand scheme of things, that really does not seem like a whole lot of money. To raise the money, Green Empowerment, Soluciones Prácticas, la Universidad de Cataluya, and Ingeneria Sin Fronteras worked together to fund the project and raise money from other organizations like Wisions. Green Empowerment also held a fundraiser at a Peruvian restaurant called Andina in Portland, Oregon, in addition to receiving donations from private individuals.

If you think that the work of Green Empowerment is something that you would like to be involved with, they do have some volunteer opportunities available (usually a three month commitment is required). You can also donate money to support their efforts and projects, which are happening in many other countries around the world in addition to Peru. For more information, please click here to visit their website.

It’s rare to come across a conservation project that is as inspirational as this one. Perhaps the next time you feel a bone-chilling, winter gust of wind piercing through your coat as you walk outside, you can take comfort in your knowledge that somewhere in Peru, up at 12,500 feet, there are people enjoying and benefiting from the clean electricity that strong winds provide. Maybe if you have kids, you’ll even choose to tell them about it. Who knows, they might even appreciate it some day.

Source: EcoWorldly

What about the waste management of these “prosthesis” of our hands??

As a multinational communications company, Vodafone can play an important role in helping to tackle climate change. Vodafone Group has announced that it will cut its CO2 emission by 50% by the year 2020 increasing energy efficiency and the amount of renewable energy the company uses.

“Your phone still has a lot of energy” is the slogan of a project Vodafone has recently launched in Italy to collect the great challenge for the environment and the future: regenerate old phones and produce clean energy. “My Future is now” is the name of this campaign directed to the regeneration of phones no longer used that contribute to the achievement of photovoltaic systems in schools in Italy. More than 800 Vodafone shops are involved and a bus is going across the country for a recycling tour collecting old mobiles.

Great news! I’ll pass by a Vodafone shop as soon as possible, it’s exciting to know my old cell phone is still alive and can contribute to the environment. But I continue to believe the purpose shouldn’t be to plug up the holes in the bucket…

My question is: why don’t we overpower our marketing addiction and try to reduce mobile production?

Source: EcoWorldly

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) published a report in 2006 that documented the plunder of natural resources by human activity and warned that the globe itself could be outstripped in its capacity to support life, rendering the earth extinct in under 50 years.

Based on scientific data collected from across the globe, it revealed that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by human activity in just over the past three decades, because of, among others, increased emissions of green house gases into the ecosystem.

Unless consumption of natural resources was cut and the destruction of vital ecosystems was stopped, human life and that of thousands of other animals and plants would not be sustainable hence the suggestion that the earth itself could be extinct by 2050. In short, the demise of biodiversity will be the death of life on earth, as we know it.
Two years after the report, it is increasingly evident that that the world is already facing crunch time, with massive global food shortages, a biting fuel crisis, depleted plant species and increased threats of extinction to lower animal species.

But relieving pressure on the environment would mean painful concessions in energy consumption, addressing climate change and global warming issues more honestly, involvement in sustainable practices to ensure global nature balance and taking proactive action on protection of the earth’s resources.

This week, two news items may have passed unnoticed save for the gravity of their content. A report in LiveScience detailed top 10 new species out of the thousands that were discovered in 2007 to be existing on earth. Another report by Reuters gave a damning overview of white rhinos that could suffer extinction from the face of the earth.

In 2006, the number of threatened animal and plant species had far exceeded 16,000 for the first time in history. Yet during last year, the UN Global Environmental Output report warned that humanity’s very survival was at risk due to the speed of depletion of earth’s resources.

Found to be under a REAL threat of extinction were 30% of amphibians, 23% of mammals and 12% of birds, while one in ten of the world’s major rivers was found to run dry every year before it reached the sea, the report said.

In 2002 when the WWF report was written, USA’s consumption ‘footprint’ was 12.2 ha (hectares) per head of population compared to the UK’s 6.29 ha, while Western Europe’s as a whole stood at 6.28 ha. In contrast, Africa, arguably the Dark Continent, was found to be the most sustainable continental land mass with Burundi, a tiny east African nation, consuming the least resources in the world at just half an acre.

It was also found that an average US resident consumed almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans. The United States placed the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption of all products and services.

The UN audit found that world’s population had grown by 34% to 6.7 billion in 20 years while 73,000km2 of forest is lost across the world each year. But more intriguing was the fact that 60% of the world’s major rivers have so far been dammed or diverted factoring in the 50% decline in freshwater fish populations.

Source: EcoWorldly

Source: Ecoscraps

Oil? Yes, oil! Some of you must have read or heard about peak oil, and wonder what will happen when the wells run dry. Others may shake your fists instinctively at the oil companies, or roll your eyes in amazement and disgust whenever another piece of news about the industry’s long, sad and cruel saga unfolds in yet another third world oil state.

But what does this really mean? How does oil really gets from the oil state to your car’s gas tank? And how do all pieces of the puzzle fit together to create this mess we call (U.S American, suburban) automobile culture?

Enter investigative journalist Lisa Margonelli’s Oil on the Brain – Petroleum’s Long Strange Trip to your Tank. In the spirit of similar recent “natural histories”, such as Michael Pollen’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma or its big screen counterpart King Corn, which both telling the complex stories of staple food commodities, Margonelli weaves the complex tale of oil.

What a fun read! So fun I got the local Seattle environmental book club I recently joined to read it at their next meeting! The quirkiness begins in the title, with its tongue-in-cheek play on the old “war on drugs” slogan. The subtitle is yet another blatant (yet apt) California-centric Grateful Dead reference to the famous “what a strange long trip it’s been” line from “Truckin’.” And indeed Margonelli’s strange tale begins at the gas pump in her local independent San Francisco gas station, where she spends a couple of shifts as an observer. Did you know that some independent gas stations make more money selling bottled water and snacks than selling gas? Kind of gives a spin to the irritation at the high prices. That is one of the first tidbits of new information that will help us begin to make sense of the mess we call the oil economy.

The next stop is a day with the gas tanker, and then from the dispatcher and all the way to the Los Angeles refinery and the East Texas oil field. The pieces of the puzzle slowly fall into place, and the stories and histories of each segment of the industry are told with an eye for the weird, funny and significant.

The picture that emerges illustrates one aspect of one of Margonelli’s key arguments. While the US maintains an active international policy, treating oil as a strategic resource, it domestically treats oil as yet another commodity. To paraphrase Frank Herbert, the policy is that “the oil must flow” and the results are total reliance of a culture on this unregulated commodity. While oil prices have doubled in recent years, consumption dropped only 4%.

And here’s another key point– oil has hidden costs, always did. Even when it was 97c a gallon, someone was paying the price. Maybe it was a farmer in Texas, when he had to let an oil speculator put a drill in his back yard for measly compensation, because the law favors the drillers, and mineral rights take precedent over the rights of property owners. Maybe these are the communities that sprawled around the refineries, with their ubiquitous burning gas flares, paying with their health, needing health care that everyone else pays for with their taxes.

Margonelli’s travelogue continues internationally, to countries that are producers of oil: Venezuela, Chad, Iran, and Nigeria. Each joined the oil economy as producers at different times and faces different challenges. In each there is a part of the population and economy as a whole that bears the vast “hidden” costs of gas at the pump. The cost of corruption is local poverty, sometimes in the exact places where the oil was found. The community bears the social cost of human rights violations, and the health costs of all sorts of environmental pollution.

But to know all of the above you did not necessarily need to read this book. What makes it unique and different from your run of the mill finger pointing rant are the stories and the people. Like Aresu, a female Iranian journalist who was Margonelli’s sly accomplice in Iran, helping her navigate the bureaucracy and get access to key people to meet and interview, and arranged a rare visit as a woman to a Persian gulf oil rig. Another interesting figure is Herb Richards, the man “who created the business of selling self-serve gasoline in Northern California and much of the west”.

So grab this one for a fun environmental read. Get your book club to discuss it, and check out the official.

Source: Planetsave

My favorite BPA-free water bottle is the Klean Kanteen Stainless Steel Water Bottle, even though it is made in China. The stainless steel construction means it does not require a liner, like the aluminum Sigg bottles, and it is not made of plastic. The most economical choice is the Camelbak BPA Free Better Bottle, if you aren’t concerned about other potential toxins in plastics.

Source: Really Natural

BECOME SUN SAVVY:

1. Sunscreen. Every time you step outside your skin is exposed to UVA & UVB radiation whether it’s a cloudy day or sunny. It’s advisable to apply sunscreen prior to sun exposure and again 20-30 mins after being outdoors if you are in full sun. Apply after swimming regardless of water resistant formulations. The best kinds are those that contain no chemicals and instead use microfine titanium dioxide or zinc oxide that reflect and block the harmful rays from penetrating skin.

2. Find yourself a good natural or organic SPF lip balm that contains good amounts of skin emollients like plant and nut butters to keep your lips protected and smooth.

3. Invest in a decent pair of sunglasses - preferably the wrap around variety to protect the sides of your eyes/face. Good quality lenses are critical to shield the eyes and filter out UVA & UVB rays.

4. Besides a killer pair of gorgeous shades, a hat is the next most important piece of clothing for Summer. There are a huge number of styles out there to satisfy even the most discerning eco-fashionista among you!

5. Throw on cover-up. Lightweight but densely woven clothing is the best thing to act as a barrier. Remember, skin will burn even through your clothing so if you’re spending extended time outdoors, make sure you still have sunscreen on underneath your clothes and move to the shade as much as possible.

6. A pretty parasol or vintage umbrella will not only protect you but can make a beautiful and unique fashion statement.

7. The peak hours for sun exposure are between 12-2pm in Winter, and in Summer from 10-3pm. If you live in a really hot climate, use your judgment to adjust those hours accordingly.

8. Tanning Beds will burn you just as the sun will so don’t be fooled into thinking it’s a safe way to tan. If you simply can’t give up your sessions, make sure you apply sunscreen so you protect your skin and won’t burn.

9. Use fake tan. I’m not suggesting you give up wanting that healthy, sun-kissed look - just that you do it in a healthy way. There are several natural fake tans that will give you a realistic, golden glow.

10. If after all this good advice you still get burned - and let’s fact it, it happens - make sure you have some after suncare products stashed in your home just in case. If you don’t have anything at hand, Aloe Vera, Green Tea, Yoghurt and Cucumber are all particularly soothing. Note: the skin can keep burning for hours after sun exposure without you even realizing. Keep all your suncare products in the fridge for a cooling sensation that will help stop the burn.

SMART SKINCARE:

11. Keep it clean. Throughout the day your skin accumulates all kinds of unwanted debris as well as going through its’ own cycle of renewal. It’s especially important to clean at the end of the day to remove all of that so skin is refreshed and can breathe. In the morning it’s a great way to freshen and prep skin for moisturizer and makeup.

12. Exfoliate. Don’t use a harsh scrub but do use an exfoliant that’s been specifically formulated for delicate facial skin. This will polish, refine and help your skin glow as well as stimulate blood flow and cell turnover. The number of times you should use one depends on your skin type - refer to manufacturer instructions on what’s best for your skin.

13. Moisturize. Use a moisturizer that’s specifically formulated for your skin type. Moisturizers perform various functions such as preventing moisture loss (your skin loses a lot of moisture during the day without you realizing); creating a protective barrier while allowing skin to function normally; providing essential nutrients, vitamins and minerals vital to maintaining the structure, elasticity and youthful appearance of skin.

14. Take care of your body. Your entire body needs the same care and attention as your face. Wash daily, exfoliate, and moisturize to keep your skin looking great and functioning properly. Remember that certain parts of your body may be prone to extra dryness so use a richer cream for these areas.

15. Different skin types need different skin solutions. Make sure you assess your skin properly before selecting the skincare you use. Avoid harsh, drying formulations for oily skin - these will only serve to destabilize your skin’s balance creating more problems than you started with. Similarly, don’t go overboard with ultra rich creams for dry or dehydrated skin - these may over burden the skin, also leading to problems.

16. Keep hands away from your face. Hands are subject to a myriad of germs and bacteria throughout the course of the day. Wash them regularly or use a natural hand sanitizer and try not to touch your face so you’re not transferring those germs.

17. Do not pick or squeeze no matter how tempting it is or how crazy it drives you! Squeezing can cause scarring of delicate facial tissue, broken capillaries and unsightly healing. Also, the area underneath your nails is full of bacteria so you can create more infection than you started with.

18. Keep your hair clean - especially if you wear a style that falls on your face.

19. Use organic and/or natural makeup and wherever possible, use the lightest form of cover you feel works for you. You don’t have to use it all over - only on the areas you want to apply it. Also, if your foundation is a little on the heavy side you can mix it with your moisturizer to form a light, tinted cover.

20. Don’t neglect your feet. Taking care of this part of your body not only