Exploring the Urban Green

The day the "front fell off" and the oil spilled

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Wed, 21 May 2008 03:55:00 +0000

This video is a little dated, but take a look for an entertaining two minutes.

Grading the government on ocean issues

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Tue, 20 May 2008 03:03:00 +0000

Popular Science Magazine reported today on a "report card" published by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission that rates the government's ocean-policy performance over the past year. According to PopSci:

"Hard work paid off for state and regional governments, which earned a respectable A�??. But not so for Congress and the president, whose subpar grades never once rose above C or D territory."

New Jersey, for instance, was praised for using "environmentally sound principles that aim to protect the state�??s wealth of marine species and guard its shorelines from pollution."

In the meantime, the federal government "performed dismally in comparison." As new studies are published, we're becoming increasingly aware of the crucial role that the ocean plays in global warming, absorbing most of the increased heat. But the Fed, as usual, is slow to take action.

Risky baby bottles and flea shampoos

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:22:00 +0000

As if plastic doesn't cause enough damage and there aren't enough things laying around (like toys) that are dangerous to kids, researchers are now saying that plastic bottles could be "condemning children to a lifetime of obesity."

According to the UK's "Daily Mail":

"Three studies suggest that exposure early in life to 'gender-bending' chemicals widely used in plastics, non-stick pans and water pipes can lead to fatness in adulthood."

What's more, the article goes on to say that "[p]regnant women who use flea shampoos on pets are twice as likely to have a child with autism, according to researchers [at University of California Davis Centre for Children's Environmental Health]."

With lead in teeth caps and risky chemicals in baby bottles, looks like the government has a lot more introspection to do on regulations and enforcement.

Gas goes off the charts and bikes fly off the racks

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:04:00 +0000

The New York Times reported this weekend that rising gas prices are driving up bike sales. Looking around New York City, especially on a sunny day, it's no surprise: cyclists are everywhere. Neon signs on the the West Side Highway warn drivers: "Share the road, watch out for cyclists." Really? Is this sign really meant to prevent accidents? Because from what I've seen, being a cyclist in New York City, outside Central Park, can't possibly be safe.

Just last week another article ran in the Times, "Bike lanes, intended for safety, become traffic battlegrounds." I haven't been able to find numbers on recent cyclist fatalities or injuries in New York City, but this report (PDF) will give you an idea for the numbers in the last ten years. According to the report, prepared by the New York City Departments of Health and Mental Hygiene, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, and the New York City Police Department, "The bicyclist fatality rate for NYC is similar to the national rate �?? 2.8 compared to 2.7 per one million residents." Most of these accidents are results of a motor vehicle crash. With more bikes being used as an alternative mode of transportation, it's fair to expect more accidents.

New York has instituted bike lanes, but many cars see these as parking spots or extra road space; apparently the $115 fine for driving on the bike lane isn't imposed too often. Check out a Web site created by cyclists chronicling images of bike lane violators (such as the one above this post).

Obviously, fines and neon signs aren't enough. Driving in New York myself, I know I've had some close calls with cyclists. Part of the problem is we seem to be operating by different sets of rules. Bikes fly by when I'm sitting in a traffic jam. They come out of nowhere when I start moving, weaving in and out of lanes. So, with gas going off the charts and bikes flying off the racks, we still need some solution. Increasingly, it'll become more and more imperative we "share the road."

Think of your teeth when recycling e-waste

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Wed, 07 May 2008 03:07:00 +0000

This past year we've seen lead in children's toys, jewelry and household products. Now it looks like dental work - meaning bridges and crowns - outsourced from China might also be tainted with lead.

Click here to watch a video reported by ABC earlier this week. The video appeared the same day the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) issued the following statement:

"EPA is taking steps toward revising the nation's air quality standards for lead for the first time in 30 years [...]"

Meanwhile, according to the Columbus Dispatch, "An estimated 7 million foreign-made crowns now flow into the United States annually, representing about one-fifth of the crowns implanted in Americans' mouths. A crown can be produced overseas for as little as one-tenth of the cost of one made domestically."

Now the American Dental Association (ADA) is launching a "larger-scale investigation into the safety of both foreign and domestically produced dental crowns and other dental prostheses."

Ironically, the Wall Street Journal reported last year that "[f]or lead, the trip to China from the U.S. typically goes something like this: U.S. consumers and businesses send their old electronics to recycling firms -- often by way of innocuous recycling drives."

So, at least some of the lead we're finding in our teeth, jewelry, toys and household products is e-waste finding its way back to us in a very circular motion, through the same kind of "recycling services" I blogged about last month. The WSJ article states that the UN estimates that up to 50 million tons of e-waste is thrown away world-wide each year -- large chunks of it ending up in China. So, if nothing else, think of your teeth when getting rid of e-waste.

I'm back... and found something new to explore

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Mon, 05 May 2008 02:41:00 +0000

Have you used Google Earth yet?

Not only does it show you different angles of the earth (3-D), allowing you to zoom in and out, but it has incredible regional content. Say you zoom in on China. Depending on the region you're looking at, you can:

Click on a New York Times icon for a current news story on the region (e.g. "How Murdock lost in China");

Click on a UNEP icon that shows how that particular surface you're looking at has changed over the years and is continuing to change (e.g. The Three Gorges Dam on the Chang Jiang (Yangtze) River in China is one of the largest single construction projects ever attempted on the planet -- originally constructed to supply one ninth of China's electricity. Because of its construction, however, the former village of Zigui has been submerged.);

Or click on a World Wildlife Fund icon for info on an active project in that region (e.g. conserving the Qinling panda area).

Google Earth also has data from national parks with information on places to hike. It shows landmarks across the world. You can find green buildings around North America. You'll see information from dozens of organizations, including Earth Watch and Greenpeace. You can learn about farming and climate conditions across the globe and animals that could be extinct across the country.

Only problem is that before you know it, half your day will be gone...

Here's a little taste of what I'm talking about:

"A Million Trees": a Far-Fetched Plan?

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:32:00 +0000

The Washington Post reported last week on cities' efforts to "green America." According to the Post, "trees are being retasked as 'green infrastructure' managed by 'urban foresters' to work as powerful energy-saving, carbon-sucking, wastewater-treating tools to save the planet."

But, it continued, mayors are finding planting trees isn't as easy a solution as they thought it would be:

"Urban tree farming can be a time-consuming, expensive and exasperating experience -- like children, trees require years of maintenance. Businesses complain about the cost, neighbors about the sap. Their roots are murder on sidewalks; their limbs tangle with power lines."

What's more, "despite what they say now, politicians have not been tree huggers. The first item cut in any tight budget year is usually tree maintenance."

So... with all that said, how are these noble efforts coming along?

Well, let's take NYC as a model. Just about a year ago Mayor Bloomberg unveiled PlaNYC 2030: a plan to make NYC "more environmentally friendly as it expands to meet the needs of 1 million more residents by 2030," which included planting one million trees by 2030.

Last week, the Gotham Gazette offered some "expert viewpoints" on how New York is doing on several aspects of this plan. Following are some of the experts' thoughts:

"If the city is serious about planting one million trees by 2030, it must also encourage preservation and maintenance of existing trees, be they on private property or public land. City agencies should not approve building permits without considering the environmental effects and all associated costs of demolition, and it should not approve rear yard additions and other building projects that destroy trees or reduce permeable surfaces without considering the associated environmental and economic costs.

[...] A sustained commitment to the principles PlaNYC 2030 and extensive coordination within and between our many city departments and public and private citizens will be critical if the goals are to be realized.

Unfortunately, this coordination and commitment is already coming up short. Even the Parks Department is violating some basic tenets of PlaNYC. According to the New York Times, the department is seeking to cut down 14 trees at Union Square; on Randall's Island, an unspecified number of trees were felled to make way for sports fields and countless trees were also destroyed (some say more than 400) to make way for the new Yankee Stadium. [...]"

Many other cities made promises of million(s) of trees by a certain date, including Boston, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, New Mexico, Denver, etc., etc., etc.

How are the trees where you live doing?

City lights by night: measures of humanity's footprints

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:16:00 +0000

It's no surprise that the Earth is becoming an increasingly urban planet. And with urbanization come lights.

NASA has been paying attention to changes in city lights -- by night -- as another means to document and illustrate humanity's footprints on the Earth. Following is a random mix of night lights. Also, don't miss at the bottom of this post Astronaut Don Pettit's narrated slideshow, "Cities at Night: An Orbital Tour Around the World."

New York City & East Coast City Lights

Los Angeles by night

Sao Paulo by night

London by night

Buenos Aires by night

Cities at Night: An Orbital Tour Around the World, narrated by Don Pettit

Perpetuating Earth Day 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:57:00 +0000

I skipped posting on Earth Day. To be honest, I was a little overwhelmed by all the negative green out there. Here are a few examples of what I mean:

"Nationally, climate change has become a galvanizing political issue. But real-world changes still lag: U.S. emissions are projected to rise, not fall, over the next two decades." (from the Washington Post)

"Is Earth Day still relevant 18 years on? As corporate sponsors mount, some activists believe the charity strayed from its purpose." (from the Toronto Star)

"Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops." (from the New York Times)

And, of course, Michael Pollan's cover New York Times Magazine article, "Why Bother?"

YET, from all the articles listed above, there have been sprinkles of good things listed along the edges -- and these shouldn't be after-thoughts:

Since the first Earth Day, in 1970, environmental laws have helped clean up rivers across the country.
The banning of certain pesticides helped bring back the bald eagle.
Environmental awareness has blossomed.
Kids today lecture parents on the evils of the family SUV.
Millions of people across the globe turned off their lights during Earth Hour.
Corporations send out daily press releases advertising new commitment to "greenness."
Green homes are being built every day.
A new crop of campus activists is taking action and being a catalyst for change.
And perhaps most important, people are perpetuating Earth Day every day, buying "green" and sorting through all the unchartered territory in science, economics and politics that will (hopefully) make it all worth the bother.

---
On a totally unrelated note, check out Scientific American Online for my new article on how some days really are longer than others.

Got junk? Be careful who you trust with it

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:18:00 +0000

Did you know that between 50 to 80 percent of all e-waste delivered to recyclers in North America ends up in Asia or Africa for alleged reuse or recycling?

So says the Basel Action Network (BAN), a nonprofit organization that serves as a watchdog on global environmental injustice and economic inefficiency of toxic trade.

In fact, one of the outfits that BAN warns consumers about is 1-800-GOT-JUNK, a company that was actually featured on on NPR just a few weeks ago (through a positive prism).

BAN's warning: Be wary.

"BAN contacted 1-800-GOT-JUNK? several weeks ago after they observed that exporting recyclers were listed as companies to be used for handling the collected waste. BAN then warned the company that their event, which was telling the public it could do things the right way and protect the earth, would likely have the opposite effect. BAN offered to work with 1-800-GOT-JUNK? to identify responsible recyclers for their program, but the company declined the offer. Next BAN urged the company to only use recyclers that agreed in writing to not export any of the hazardous materials for any reason, otherwise it was likely that they would be contributing to illegal trade and poor waste management. According to all information now provided to BAN by the 1-800-GOT-JUNK? representative in charge of the event, the company has again declined to do this. [...] To make matters worse, 1-800-GOT-JUNK? also removed the "recycling company" names from their website after BAN made its concerns known, thus making it more difficult for the public to determine in advance whether the company is responsible or not."

Just a month ago The National Geographic showed in touching photos what happens to discarded e-waste when it winds up overseas. These are not pretty pictures, but they are worth looking at.

So, if you're looking for ways to recycle e-waste for some spring cleaning, you can check out some options I posted on this blog a little while ago, or if you're near New York, the New York Magazine did I nice piece this month on the "convenient" versus "virtuous" options of where to "Dump your Junk."

Campaign 2008 and the environment (on C-SPAN)

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:27:00 +0000

Last Friday, environmental policy advisers from the three campaigns focused for the first time on what the future may hold for energy and environmental policy. Organized by the Society of Environmental Journalists, the event took place at the National Press Club in D.C. and appeared on C-SPAN. To see the video, click here (will launch in RealPlayer) .

Speakers included:

Jason Grumet, environmental advisor for Sen. Barack Obama, and the president and founder of the Bipartisan Policy Council in Washington, D.C.
Todd Stern, advisor to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and a partner at the Washington, D.C. law firm Wilmer-Hale
Jim Woolsey, former CIA Director and environmental advisor to Sen. John McCain, and an attorney with Goodwin Procter

Moderators included:

Margie Kriz, energy and environment reporter, National Journal
Susan Feeney, senior editor, All Things Considered, National Public Radio

Questioning all things green

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:34:00 +0000

I've been seeing green everywhere. And I really mean everywhere.

Vanity Fair, National Geographic and Discover are just three magazines that featured green issues this month (yes, Earth Day falls on Tuesday, April 22... no coincidence here, I think). Each magazine does have interesting and provocative investigative articles, some helpful "tips" on going green, etc. And these magazines also, naturally, carry a ton of green advertising.

The advertising ranges from "natural" tobacco, to "natural" cereal, to "natural" bottled water (c'mon, bottled water?! Click here for why everyone should use filtered water). And more. A lot more. Some of the ads I'm sure are for companies/products making a legitimate effort to be sustainable and help conserve the environment. But others (like any ad for bottled water), I'm not so sure about.

Advertising Age, a trade magazine for advertisers, ran an article this week, "Is Earth Day the New Christmas?" It details how companies have been flooding branding consultants and ad agencies this month to get into the green wave. Following is a piece taken from the article:

As April 22 approaches, marketers of all stripes are bombarding consumers with green promotions and products designed to get them to buy more products -- some eco-friendly, some not so much. And while that message seems to contrast with the event's intent, the oxymoron seems to have been lost on marketers jumping on the Earth Day bandwagon in record numbers. This year it seems that just about everyone has found a way to attach themselves to what is fast becoming a marketing holiday that barely resembles the grass-roots event founded in 1970.

"This month I've definitely seen a lot of companies that I never would have associated with green popping up," said Steven Addis, CEO of Addis Creson, a branding firm. "Companies are saying, 'We need something to green ourselves up, so let's ... sponsor Earth Day.' ... It's really now in this hype curve, and hopefully we're getting toward the top, so we can start having some fallout."

... Right.

In the meantime, though, I think back to the "green" products that were proven to be toxic. Products I admit I had originally bought for housecleaning, washing clothes and for the shower. I won't buy those anymore, not until I trust the companies again. Instead, I use less water, take quicker showers and am more mindful of what I throw down the sink. I continue to read everything about the environment that I get my hands on, but I'll take all ads with a grain of salt.

Especially this month.

Headlines from around the world: rainforest condoms, Alaskan gas, and some good news/bad news

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 02:47:00 +0000

Each week brings its own special flavor of green stories in business and politics, and this week is no exception. Following is a brief mid-week look at a couple of the latest headlines:

Brazil makes 'rainforest condoms', reports the BBC. (Some context: "The Brazilian government has begun producing condoms using rubber from trees in the Amazon.")

... Potential good news to come in Alaska (circa 2018):

ConocoPhillips, BP Plan Pipeline for Alaska Gas, reports the Wall Street Journal. The Alaskan gas could help "tame prices for the relatively clean-burning fuel, which closed just shy of $10 per million British thermal units Monday on the futures markets, up 30% from a year ago."

... And some more good news:

"Americans are cutting back on driving as they feel the pinch from high oil prices and a soft economy," reports the Wall Street Journal.

... Alas, bad news in the same article's headline:

Gasoline Hits Record High at Pump Despite Demand Decrease

A sense of urgency: trading green & Project Vulcan

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:33:00 +0000

NPR did an interesting piece this week on young b-school grads who are making a living as "carbon entrepreneurs." The folks interviewed live in Washington, D.C. and want to "make a living and help save the environment" through their work.

Carbon-trading is not new, but it's been hitting the headlines lately as Europe takes a look back at data from 2007 to see whether the program worked for them (it didn't, emissions went up) and Australians debate the best ways to go about trading emissions (if at all).

As we experiment with how to best "green" society, the emerging business opportunities seem endless. But, going back to Europe: does carbon trading work? Some say that it will start working as governments learn how to better adjust regulations.

In the meantime, though, researchers at Purdue University published a video (below) along with research culminating in "Project Vulcan," which provides a great perspective on carbon emissions in the U.S. The video shows a pulsating map of carbon emissions being emitted from various sources. (e.g.: industrial, mobile, agricultural, residential, commercial). It's just under five minutes long and worth watching. Seeing the blanket of emissions at work certainly gave me a sense of urgency to find ways to make it go away.

The parallels of meat, oil, and... corn?

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:27:00 +0000

Remember the parallels of meat and oil? In a nutshell, we have an addicted-consumer relationship to both, and our dependency wreaks havoc to the environment and our health.

Well here's the thing; we kinda have an unhealthy relationship with corn, too.

An AP story yesterday reported that corn prices jumped to $6 a bushel last week (What's oil at nowadays? Let's just say over $100 a barrel).

Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma and writer for The New York Times, has been warning readers for years about our addiction to corn, and how unhealthy it is both to us and to the environment. In fact, one of the last op-eds Pollan wrote for the Times (11/07) talked about the farm bill being revised by Congress. He wrote: "Americans have begun to ask why the farm bill is subsidizing high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils at a time when rates of diabetes and obesity among children are soaring, or why the farm bill is underwriting factory farming (with subsidized grain) when feedlot wastes are polluting the countryside and, all too often, the meat supply."

The pending five-year farm bill -- estimated at $280 billion -- is to emerge from a Congressional conference committee this month.

Meanwhile, yesterday's AP story reports that "corn and corn syrup are used in an array of products, meaning the price of everything from candy to soft drinks will eventually go up, analysts say." Uh -- meaning, 'Consumers beware! Your junk food is about to get more expensive?' Is that really bad news?

Yes,"20 percent of last year's 13 billion bushel corn crop was consumed by ethanol production," the article adds. Maybe the percentage should increase then. After all, addictions that come with a higher price should be easier to kill. No? I'd love to hear Pollan's thoughts on this.

Empowering "citizen scientists"

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:43:00 +0000

A Web site project called "Project BudBurst" has empowered citizens concerned/interested in learning first-hand about climate change to do just that.

In a nutshell, the site invites visitors to participate and be amateur scientists by observing how plants in their geographical area are changing. It provides you with visuals of different plants in various regions so they can be identified by both their common name and scientific name. It then asks you to determine latitude and longitude of where your plant is located (tools are provided), and teaches you how to determine the phenophase (phenological stage) you are observing the plant in (e.g. first flower, full flower, seed/fruit dispersal).

You're then invited to report your observations, and over the years hopefully learn first hand about the evolution of "your" plant while your data can be compared with historical data.

The site also provides resources for teachers to help illustrate the science of climate change to their students -- and a page designed for students that does the same.

Obviously, it houses a ton of content. And truth be told, I'm a bit enamored with the site...

Climate migrants: a new reality?

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:47:00 +0000

The New York Times ran a blog post a few days ago by Nicki Bennett, an American aide worker in Bangladesh, that got some heated responses. Nicki wrote about daily experiences working on post-hurricane reconstruction, living in an overcrowded state, and run-in with someone she called a "climate migrant":

"Few countries in the world are more acutely threatened by climate-related disasters and climate change than Bangladesh. The country (70 percent of which consists of flood plain) is already sinking �?? within the next two decades Bangladesh may lose as much as 20 percent of its land to rising sea levels and melting Himalayan glaciers. This is not good news in a country of 150 million people - even a relatively moderate 10 or 20 centimeters rise in sea level could displace millions within the next 15 years. Population density is already high, with approximately 1045 Bangladeshis crammed into each square kilometer of land."

Responses to this post ranged from something like "thank you for bringing this to the climate change discussion" to "what a load -- this isn't journalism!"

In the meantime, earlier in early March, The Guardian reported that:

"[A]ccording to the EU's two senior foreign policy officials, Europe needs to brace itself for a new wave of migration with a very different cause - global warming. The ravages already being inflicted on parts of the developing world by climate change are engendering a new type of refugee, the 'environmental migrant'."

The report's key message was that "the immediate and devastating effects of global warming will be felt far away from Europe, with the poor suffering disproportionately in south Asia, the Middle East, central Asia, Africa and Latin America, but that Europe will ultimately bear the consequences."

In essence, it seems that if global warming and climate change are accepted facts of life, migration resulting from climate change is a logical assumption of what's to become a new reality.

Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King, authors of "The Hot Topic," point out the irony in all this: "The climate change that is already in the pipeline will hit hardest those countries that are least equipped to deal with it--and that have been least responsible for releasing the emissions that caused the problem in the first place."

Images of Earth Hour 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:51:00 +0000

From CNN.com:

From the Associated Press:

From Ctv.ca:

From Middle East Online:

From EarthHour.com:

From Manila:

Click here for a Reuters slideshow of Earth Hour 2008.

Earth Hour - March 29

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:24:00 +0000

This is a short post to point out that Earth Hour takes place tomorrow (March 29). Essentially, it initiated last year in Australia at 8 p.m. when people joined together by turning off their lights for an hour to send out a message of solidarity around the world.

Check out a couple of entries from fellow blogger, "Things that Make You Go Green" for the details:

Google Israel and Earth Hour is a great example of Earth Hour implemented in a creative fashion (see screenshot to the right). For a deeper explanation of Earth Hour and where it came from, see Earth Hour 2008.

Green-living debates across the States

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:09:00 +0000

So, it would seem that as more people get behind the green movement and look for everyday green solutions, living a sustainable lifestyle can only get easier.

This January, for instance, New Jersey approved a law (to be implemented in 2010) requiring manufactures to recycle computers and TVs. Thirteen other states are considering similar laws. (Click here to see recycling laws currently in effect across the U.S.)

In some instances, though, going green is not necessarily getting easier.

Some homeowners in Minnesota are discussing whether solar panels should be impeded by neighborhood associations. Even though between 200,000 and 250,000 U.S. homes and businesses have solar panels today, some people think they are "unsightly" and are using these associations to bar solar panels from their community, says an article in the Star Tribune. Homeowners are lobbying state legislators to introduce a measure preventing community associations from banning solar panels. Minnesota isn't alone, by the way. The proposed law "follows the example of half a dozen similar measures enacted in states such as Arizona, New Jersey and Florida."

Meanwhile, on Thursday (3/27) California law-makers will consider a proposal to relax the state's mandate for sales of zero-emission vehicles, reports Dow Jones:

"This is our constant struggle, nudging the auto makers into investing in new technologies, but we want to be realistic in knowing what to expect on California roadways," said Leo Kay, a CARB spokesman.
But the proposal to ease the mandate has even rattled some automakers who have bet on fuel cell or electric technologies as the next wave.

But debates on fighting carbon emissions are misdirected, a scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder said to the LA Times. He and a number of other scientists say we all need to stop spending so much on fighting global warming, but rather should work on adapting to it:

"Instead of spending trillions of dollars to stabilize carbon dioxide levels across the planet -- an enormously complex and expensive proposition -- the world could work on reducing hunger, storm damage and disease now, thereby neutralizing some of the most feared future problems of global warming."

The eco-urbanist (and more on regulations)

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:39:00 +0000

Today's Wall Street Journal highlighted bits from its annual conference on "the business of the environment."

Among some of the topics discussed, Jeffrey Immelt's take on government regulation on business (the impending cap on greenhouse emissions) was interesting: "I'd just as soon have a seat at that table than have it pushed down my throat." This relates directly to a front-page article in the same newspaper, entitled, "Political Pendulum Swings Toward Stricter Regulation."

Following are some other highlights from the Journal Report:

* One of the most influential venture firms in Silicon Valley, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, is devoting about one-third of its investments to green technology.

* An interesting point by the WSJ's Alan Murray: "I have a friend who's a professor at Stanford University, and for the past 10 years, he's tracked two things. One was attitudes of incoming freshmen toward the environment, and he's seen a sharp line up -- much more sensitive, much more concerned about where we're headed on the environment. And then he tracks electricity usage in freshmen dorm rooms. And that's going up, as well."

* As wind farms, solar-power systems and the factories that make their equipment spring up across the U.S., the growth in "green-collar jobs" is giving new life to manufacturing jobs.

Finally, take a look at the video below showing how green living in the U.S. is affecting new communities.

Government and business tango

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:21:00 +0000

The quest for environmental responsibility is getting more and more interesting every day. As the government is pressured to do the right thing, and businesses try to market themselves as green and socially responsible, little controversies are boiling up.

In Kansas, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed a bill on Friday that would have forced the state to approve two coal-fired power plants producing large amounts of carbon dioxide. The veto is now going to the Kansas State of Representatives.

In the national scale, as the Senate prepares to take up a bill that would cut greenhouse emissions by up to 65 percent by 2050, energy companies and other businesses launched a campaign "to undermine climate change legislation pending in Congress, saying it could cost millions of jobs, drive gasoline prices sharply higher and suck thousands of dollars from household incomes."

What do you think? How does the government gauge when and where to get involved?

Traveling green

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:56:00 +0000

Last night, after a six-hour flight (with a carbon footprint of 0.93, equaling a carbon offset of $5.10), I arrived at sunny Santa Clara, CA. The sky is blue and I'm surrounded by beautiful mountain ranges.

Outside, there are also highways galore. No doubt about it, getting from A to B will require a car.

So, in my quest to be green, I started doing a little bit of research. Not surprisingly, car rental companies around the U.S. have gotten into the business of offering green options for their drivers. From offering fuel-efficient hybrids to the chance to offset CO2 emissions, most rental companies have some green option. Also, California has a Web site with green resources that includes info on green car rentals and a directory of green hotels.

Of course, if you're looking for green hotels pretty much anywhere around the world, different organizations will point you to where you might want to stay. For hotels in the U.S., you can try doing a search on the EPA's Energy Star site. Or, you could contact the U.S. Green Building Council to find out about hotels built in a sustainable manner. On top of those two options, several Web sites rate international hotels with the help of travelers who write up reviews. For instance, see Environmentalfriendlyhotels.com.

Finally, the Green Hotel Association offers a laundry list of helpful tips for concerned travelers that want to be green on the road. Among the tips: "Check out of the hotel via the hotel's electronic program available on the TV in some hotels. You can view your bill, approve it, and help reduce paperwork. Take photos with a digital camera. Disposable cameras are very wasteful and expensive."

So anyway, baby steps. This time I'll rent a green car. Next time, maybe I'll rent a bike.

Doom and gloom, part 2 (last part, promise)

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:11:00 +0000

One of the latest green headlines in the news this week is on a new report released by the UN Environment Program (UNEP) that shows that glaciers are melting faster than initially suspected. So, hurry up and take that trip to Alaska already and see the tumbling glaciers before it's too late.

Speaking of impending extinctions, while trolling the Web, I found out that Plenty Magazine keeps an extinction blog. Among its headlines:

Tiger populations plummet -- down 50% in 25 years
Six losses for endangered species: Bad news for bears, wolverines, dragonflies and all Canadian wildlife...

On the upside, the blog does aim to show us steps on how we can help deter the doom and gloom. It's worth checking out.

Green PR claims debunked

noreply@blogger.com (Keren Blankfeld Schultz) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:24:00 +0000

Our endless consumption of "green products" has been a PR dream for so many companies. But how many of the ads and PR claims out there are legit?

A couple of days ago, the LA Times reported that products from 100 different companies with "green" claims contained some kind of toxicant:

Many items that tested positive for the carcinogen are well-known brands, including Kiss My Face, Alba, Seventh Generation and Nature's Gate products, sold in retail stores across the nation.

Click here for a full list of products with toxic details.

It's impossible to know for sure where marketing ends and corporate sincerity begins, but some reporters have been doing great investigative work.

Check out a list of "Toxic Ten" compiled by Portfolio. According to the magazine, the companies listed "should be doing better." They include:

J.R. Simplot Pro (produces french fries and supplies over half of McDonalds' potato inventory) - big polluter, practices phosphate mining
Cargill (corn-processing plants) - dumps toxic chemicals in the North Fork Shenandoah River
Ford Motor - had the second-worst fleetwide gas-mileage rating in both 2006 and 2007, according to the E.P.A.
Boeing - the company has been "less than transparent" about its greenhouse-gas emissions, overstating its environmental friendliness in advertisements
Apple - Phthalate, a toxin thought to cause birth defects, has been found in the iPhone and iPod headphone cords
Southern Co. (power-provider) - operates the top three carbon-dioxide-emitting plants in the U.S.
American Electric Power - one of the biggest mercury polluters in the U.S.
Massey Energy - owns a sludge reservoir that lies less than 400 yards from a West Virginia elementary school
Chevron - contributed waste to more than 90 active Superfund sites
Alcoa - releases 6.1 million pounds of air pollution annually