Entering a grocery store for a socially and environmentally minded person can be quite a stressful and trying experience. Should you buy that organic, free-range, cage-free, grass-fed, non-GMO, natural, fair-trade beef? How do you know if those chickens really are free to roam in bucolic pastures? How often are the organic farms audited? How do you know if the apple from New Zealand produced less fossil fuels compared to the local one? When the seemingly more ethical products cost up to twice as much as conventional ones, we end up staring at the shelves in a daze with recycle symbols and cheery looking Peruvian coffee growers circling our heads.

Read more of this story »

The streets are going to be reoriented at an angle to maximize solar and minimize wind. It will include 6,000 units of high-density housing, without any single detached residences. Thirty percent of the housing will be affordable.

Read more of this story »

Mayor Newsom started off proudly declaring that San Francisco has the highest recycling rate in the country at 70 percent, with a goal of zero waste by 2020. The city accepts all types of plastics and even provides a bin to compost all food, including meat! One of the few items not accepted are plastic bags, but last year San Francisco banned plastic bags from all major grocery stores.

The city has one of the most aggressive green building programs in the US. This is important because construction and operation of buildings are responsible for 40 percent of total energy use, 65 percent of total electricity use, 40 percent of air pollution and 38 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The building below is the California Academy of Sciences which is planned to be LEED Platinum, the highest green building rating by the US Green Building Council, opening September 27, 2008.

Read more of this story »

I am attending the conference and I will post interesting information throughout the week about the sessions I attend. Last night (April 21st), Gary Braasch, photographer and author of Earth Under Fire, How Global Warming is Changing the World, presented “his past and present record of climate change around the world with emphasis on

Read more of this story »

You have heard the threats: if we don’t do something about climate change we will experience something akin to apocalyptic collapse. Climate change will increase the number of diseases, catastrophic storms, wildfires, droughts and floods. With climate change becoming more popular in recent months, companies are starting to take actions to ensure our children do not inherit a ruined earth. However, it is questionable whether some companies care more about their image and profits versus sincere desire to help the environment.

I have noticed more and more commercials by companies that cause huge environmental harm touting small ecological improvements. There are the plastic water bottle companies expounding how kind they are to the environment because they have reduced the amount of plastic in their bottles. The problem is, buying a plastic water bottle, using it once and throwing it away is not helping the earth.

Also, there are the car companies bragging how their environmentally friendly cars are going to save the world. Have you seen the commercial where the little boy asks the father, “Why did you buy a hybrid daddy?” and the father says, “For your future.” If the father really cared about the kid’s future he would be riding a bike or taking transit. Hybrids are only about 20% to 35% more efficient than a fuel efficient gasoline powered vehicle, whereas transit is more than 10 times as fuel-efficient per passenger as the average car. If these companies really cared about the environment they would take more drastic measures. One of the main problems is we don’t really know how much we need to change to get maximum benefits.

The Green Guide has a calculator that will calculate how much carbon you produce from various daily activities like showering and driving. For instance, if you cut two minutes off your shower you can reduce 342 pounds of carbon yearly. But what does this really mean? How do we know if this is enough or not? It seems if we were really serious about this we would have some sort of recommendations for each individual and each company, instead of general numbers for each country; to reduce carbon output levels by 20 percent by 2020 for instance.

In an effort to reduce water usage, in 1999 Las Vegas began to offer $1.50 per square foot of lawn removed from residential and commercial properties. The Water Smart Landscapes program estimates that every square foot of grass replaced with water-smart trees, shrubs and flowers saves an average of 55 gallons of water per year, also saving money on monthly water bills. In the first eight years of the measure, about six square miles of grass have been eliminated, saving 18 billion gallons of water.

Despite these efforts, if Las Vegas and surrounding areas do not further cut water usage, there is a 10 percent chance Lake Mead will run dry in six years, and a 50 percent probability it will be completely gone by 2021. These figures are based on a recent study by two researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego.

Study co-author Tim Barnett, a marine research physicist, said, “We had not expected the problem to be so severe and so up close to us in time.” They say climate change, strong human demand and evaporation are the main factors affecting water in the lake.

Lake Mead contained 35.2 billion tons of water eight years ago, but this has fallen by half because of a decrease in the volume of water flowing in the Colorado River. A drying Colorado River would affect millions of people from Tucson to Tijuana, and Denver to Los Angeles.

According to American Water Works Association Research Foundation about 56 percent of total water used in the US is for residential consumption. Furthermore, 57 percent of residential water goes to watering the yard. In winter in Las Vegas, the watering of gardens is only permitted once a week on a designated day for just 12 minutes. Those violating the watering regulation more than twice are subject to fines of up to 2,560 dollars. However these efforts may not be enough.

Scott Huntley , a spokesman for the Southern Nevada Water Authority said “While we wholeheartedly support the authors’ call for greater urban water conservation, it is important to also remember that agriculture uses four-fifths of the Colorado River’s flows, so meaningful solutions cannot be borne solely by urban users.”

Mayor Oscar Goodman of Las Vegas has other ideas on how to keep Las Vegas alive. Last Tuesday he declared, “no one is going to allow us to go dry” and vowed to go after Southern California’s water. He said farmers in California “will have their fields go fallow before our spigots run dry.” Finally he said, “We’ll see you at the battlefront,” possibly opening up a multi-state water war.

Water issues are not just affecting the southwestern US. Kaveh Zahedi from the UN Environment Programme says, “Currently, at least 24 nuclear plants in the south-eastern United States face shutdown or drastically limited operations because severe drought conditions have lowered the levels of lakes and rivers that supply cooling water - that’s 23% of the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants.”

If we don’t stop climate change now, the future of water in the US will undoubtedly create more water wars between states and cities, and increase water and electricity bills exponentially.

See also:

R.I.P. Lake Mead, U.S. Southwest

New York and New Jersey require retailers that use plastic bags to offer a recycling program, the city of Oakland, California, is considering a ban, and China announced a countrywide free plastic bag prohibition in January. Ireland took the lead in Europe, taxing plastic bags in 2002. Customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. The Irish government says the tax has reduced the use of disposable bags by 90 percent! The tax also raised millions of dollars in revenue.

The city of Paris decided to ban non-biodegradable plastic bags in large stores in 2007, in an effort to reduce pollution. Israel, Canada, western India, Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Taiwan, Singapore and Bangladesh have also banned or are moving toward banning the plastic bag.

Robert Bateman, president of Roplast Industries , a manufacturer of plastic bags, says it costs one cent for a plastic grocery bag, whereas a paper bag costs four cents. As a result, plastic bags account for four out of every five bags handed out at the grocery store.

In January, about 42 billion plastic bags were used worldwide, according to reusablebags.com . The majority are
not recycled or reused , ending up in landfills or as litter. Plastic bags don’t biodegrade, they photodegrade, breaking down into smaller and smaller pieces which contaminate the soil and waterways, killing animals that accidentally ingest them. Plastic bags are made from petroleum, a non-renewable natural resource, contributing to the diminishing availability of oil and damage to the environment from the extraction of petroleum.

While paper bags are in some ways better for the environment, studies suggest that more greenhouse gases are released in their manufacture and transportation than in the production of plastic bags.

The Film and Bag Federation , says that compared to paper grocery bags, plastic grocery bags consume 40 percent less energy, generate 80 percent less solid waste, produce 70 percent fewer atmospheric emissions, and release up to 94 percent fewer waterborne wastes.

So if we make the effort to ban plastic, why not ban paper as well? Or at least make customers pay for them. In the meantime, canvass bags cost as little as $3 and take a moment to remember before leaving the house. You can also take along some reused plastic bags for vegetables, and other containers to fill up on oil or shampoo in the bulk section. Also, if your city or grocery store doesn’t have plastic bag recycling, ask them to offer it.

Although I have access to a car and ample public transportation here in Portland, Oregon; every trip I take is by bicycle. Even if it is 40 degrees, raining and windy — I prefer to bike. Why would I chose to be miserable biking in this uncomfortable weather when I can be driving in a warm car sitting on a soft seat listening to my favorite music? The truth is that I truly enjoy it.

To me, driving is dulling to the senses and boring. While bicycling I feel and experience the many characteristics of the changing weather throughout my trip, and across the seasons. Yesterday it was wonderful to feel the misty rain on my face, and today riding in the rare winter sun was a treat. Pouring down rain? Easy, I just wear a brimmed hat and water resistant clothing. Too cold outside? Don’t worry, after a few minutes of riding I warm right up.

It is also an enjoyable challenge for me to ride amongst the cars. This probably isn’t true for everyone — I just have an adventurous spirit. I lived and biked in The Netherlands for a few months and I actually missed the challenge of creating my own route and maneuvering around cars. It is still important to aim to achieve the level of safety the Netherlands has accomplished; to offer the option of safe routes for less experienced riders, children and the elderly. Of course biking in Portland is very different from biking in most other cities. Portland has many bike amenities that make it safer and more convenient to bike.

In the 1960’s, The Netherlands discovered that the volume of cars was increasing and along with that, the number of bike and pedestrian injuries and fatalities. As a result, they poured money into bike and pedestrian infrastructure. In many cases they restructured entire towns. Many city centers were made car-free except for buses, taxis and delivery trucks (at specified hours). Physically separated bike paths were installed like this one in Groningen, NL.

This made bicycling and walking very safe. Rutgers University urban planner John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra of the European Commission found that “Per-km and per-trip cycled, American bicyclists are twice as likely to get killed as German cyclists and over three times as likely to get killed as Dutch cyclists.”

They also found that in the US while bicycling you are 12 times more likely to have a fatal crash versus driving, per kilometer. Walking, is 23 times more dangerous. However, to put this in perspective , in the US there were 785 bicycling fatalities in 2005, 4,881 pedestrian fatalities and 43,443 automotive fatalities. On the other hand, a Danish study found that people who do not bike to work suffer a 39 percent higher mortality rate than those who do.

In Portland, the addition of bikeway miles has not increased since 2004, yet cycling has more than doubled since 2001, and the number of bike crashes has remained constant . This is consistent with the study that found the more cyclists and pedestrians on the roads, the safer the roads become.

It is very helpful that the City of Portland recognizes the value of investing in bicycle infrastructure. One of the main policy forces that is shaping and has shaped Portland is the Central City Transportation Management Plan. A main facet of that plan is that “Encouraging economic growth and housing in the Central City will increase the use of alternative transportation modes that result in less vehicle miles traveled by workers and residents.” Another main goal is “Increasing the use of mass transit, biking, walking, and carpooling as alternatives to single-occupant vehicles.” Thus, any development plans that filter through the city take into account these overarching goals.

In the next 15 years, the City of Portland is expected to grow by 300,000; from 560,000 to 860,000. The population of the metropolitan region is estimated to grow from 2.3 million to 3.3 million. Portland recognizes that investing in bicycle infrastructure achieves the set goals to increase the livability of the city. More cyclists on the roads decrease auto congestion, air pollution and traffic noise. It facilitates community interaction, which has been proven to benefit mental health. Cycling is also great for physical health. A Portland consulting agency found that Portland bicycle infrastructure brings in $63 million to Portland’s regional economy (which has a total value of $17 billion) and the bicycle industry accounts for 800 jobs.

There is also a wonderful bicycle culture in Portland. Group rides that are held nearly every day , bike festivals , bike blogs , bike advocacy organizations , bike film festivals and other bike fun encourage and support people to get on a bike.

Any time you eat non-organic food, there is a 70 percent chance you are ingesting genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Modern genetic modification is different from historical alterations–such as plant breeding–because today, genes are transferred from one species to another. For instance, when you eat GM food, there is a good chance it has been injected with genes from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)—hence Bt Corn.

Are these GM foods a path to end world hunger and ensure a robust harvest in the face of possible harsh future climates? Or, is it a way for corporations to gain global control over agriculture for profit, releasing organisms that have unknown effects on the environment and human health?

According to the USDA, in 1996, less than 5 percent of soy products were genetically modified. Within 12 years, that amount increased to 90 percent. These have been in our foods for over a decade and as far as we can tell, nothing has really gone wrong. Is that why most Americans are not hearing about GMOs?

A 2006 survey by The Pew Charitable Trust revealed that 58 percent of Americans had heard “not much” or “nothing” about genetically modified foods. 46 percent of Americans oppose the introduction of GM foods to the U.S. food supply. While probably 100 percent of those surveyed had eaten GMOs, only 26 percent thought they had.

In 2001, 75 percent said it is important for them to know whether a product contains genetically modified ingredients, and that further scientific research is needed. Despite these public concerns, the FDA did not think it was necessary to label GM foods. Could this be because companies that benefit from GM food production spend millions of dollars lobbying the FDA?

Putting that thought aside, let us suppose the government has our best interests in mind and has done the studies showing GMOs are worth the risk. So, now what is the advantage of putting bacteria genes in our foods? Bt crops kill insects that eat the crops, reducing the amount of pesticides that need to be applied to crops. Decreasing the amount of pesticides applied to crops is beneficial on many fronts.

GM advocates say biotechnology increases crop yields, and develops more nutritious plants. Thus, they claim this will provide more nutritious food for those who are hungry. They say another benefit is that more land can be preserved since less cropland needs to be used.

However, many argue that people are hungry not for lack of food, but because they do not have the money to buy food. It is a question of politics and distribution rather than quantity. It remains to be seen if biotechnology will increase yields and decrease costs to make any significant impact on world hunger.

While no short term negative health effects have been documented, according to the American Medical Association (AMA) long-term negative health effects are “theoretically possible.”

Environmental consequences are also undetermined. It is not known what effect GMO crops have on non-pest insects and animals. Studies have shown mixed results. Some have found that GM plants decrease fertility or increase mortality of some insects, and other studies indicate no negative effects. If insect populations do decline from GM crops, this could decrease the food supply for birds and other wildlife.

The AMA says: “New technology currently being developed to introduce pharmaceuticals into plants via virus-based vector systems will further raise concerns.” For instance, these pharma-crops could contaminate non-GM crops, or the seeds could be mixed. In the extreme case, this could leave us only with foods that have some sort of pharmaceutical in them. In the same sense, GM plants with fitness-enhancing transgenes could pollinate weeds, making invasive weeds more prolific and more difficult to destroy.

Currently there is no real threat of GM crops decreasing plant biodiversity. However, if a gene were introduced to increase the plants’ wild competitive ability, there might be a potential to disrupt natural ecosystems.

The fact is, not enough studies have been conducted to determine if these crops are safe or not. The AMA says: “Substantial information about (GMOs) actual effects on the environment and on biological diversity is lacking. As a consequence there is no consensus as to the seriousness, or even the existence, of any potential environmental harm from GM technology.” But don’t tell that to Monsanto, they would rather take the chances of complete destruction of our food-supply over any chance of losing out on profit.

Have you heard of Dr. Árpád Pusztai? He is one of the main reasons Europe banned import and cultivation of GM crops. In 1998 he purportedly found that rats fed GM potatoes had immune problems and did not grow as well as those fed non-GM potatoes. Some scientists questioned the accuracy of his experiments, yet some say he was ultimately suspended due to pressures from the UK government.

Is this why there is little research on the possible dangers of GMOs? Are scientists scared they will be derided by corporations and those in power? Only time will tell what benefits or detriments GMOs will have, but do we really want to wait and see?

“We must restore confidence to the economy, to consumers and to the markets,” declared The House Democratic Leadership on Friday.

Their solution? Tax rebates and relief, echoing George Bush and probably every other economic analyst. The Federal Reserve has been cutting interest rates for the past six months to achieve the same goal; to entice people to Buy! Buy! Buy!

Not only will this take money away from important public services, but increasing consumption has dire negative impacts. The process of extracting resources, manufacturing products, consuming them, and disposing of them is the very culprit of environmental degradation. And guess what? This consumption will ultimately take us down as well.

In an article entitled 10 Ways Recession Can Help the Environment the author writes:

Although air travel gets more press, shipping produces twice as much CO2 than airlines. In addition, ships use the lowest grade of oil available and are known to flush their tanks out at sea causing regular oil slicks. A reduction in shipping due to a decreased consumer demand will lead to less CO2 emissions and lower pollution of the seas.

Sure, buying those diamond earrings or that brand new sweater is going to “help the economy” and create jobs, but to what end? We need to stop buying things we don’t need, especially when many people don’t even have enough to eat.

We cannot continue to depend upon increasing public consumption to ensure a healthy economy. We need to make a sharp turn from past economic policies. One way to do this is to price products based on their true costs.

For instance, producing a can of soda currently does not take into account the costs of cleaning the waterways that have been polluted, or the costs of caring for those who are adversely affected by the air pollution it creates. If these externalities were taken into account, the price of the can would be much higher. So, companies would have some incentive to reduce their ecological footprint, or, polluting goods would cost more and be bought less. As a result, those who damage the environment would pay, and taxes would not have to be used to fix the problems, thereby reducing money paid to the government.

Also, making economic decisions with the well being of the environment in mind does not have to cost more. In fact, there are many businesses that are utilizing new technologies to improve their energy efficiency, decreasing their costs and helping the environment. Something called the E2 solution path expounds upon this idea that the environment and economy can work hand in hand.

Until we realize that some restructuring of our economy needs to take place, there are some things you can do to minimize your own footprint. Buy used goods, and those goods you need to buy new, be sure they have the least amount of packaging. Buy organic and reduce the amount of meat you consume. Be aware that each dollar you spend, you are voting for or against a positive future.

With all the hype over hybrid, biodiesel, electric and hydrogen cars, we need to ask how much better are these new breeds for the environment. Will these cars really bring on a sustainable revolution in transportation, or will we need to turn to transportation in darker shades of green?

Biofuel was hopeful at first, until the price of competing grains increased as farmers devoted more of their land to grow corn for biofuel, leaving less land to grow other crops. Now, according to the Telegraph UK, animal habitats are being destroyed as land around the world is being converted to grow biofuel crops.

You have probably heard of the CNW Marketing study that the H3 Hummer has less of an impact on the environment than the Prius. This has since been rebuked by MIT, Union of Concerned Scientists and Rocky Mountain’s Argonne National Lab. Those studies were based on lifecycle analysis. The lifecycle of a vehicle includes all the steps required to provide the fuel, to manufacture the vehicle, to operate and maintain the vehicle, and to discard and recycle the vehicle.

Manufacture and disposal of vehicles produce only about 10 percent of GHG emissions and energy use, compared to 90 percent during vehicle use, according to Greencars.org . However, there are many other negative effects of auto production.

Environmental Defense found that in 1996 the US produced 600 million tons of waste material mining ore for automotive production. Mining releases toxic chemicals and ruins natural habitat. Pre-assembly manufacturing uses energy, and produces solid wastes and CO2. In the US each year, painting and coating cars produces 40 million pounds of air releases and 24 million pounds of hazardous wastes. Joining parts with toxic adhesives also produces VOC emissions and toxic wastes. To balance some of these impacts, up to 75 percent of the car is recycled.

According to an MIT report entitled On the Road in 2020: A life-cycle analysis of new automobile technologies a vehicle that uses compressed natural gas as fuel with an internal combustion engine (ICE) and hybrid technology would emit the least amount of GHG emissions over its lifecycle, about half as much as a regular gasoline ICE vehicle. A diesel ICE hybrid vehicle would use the least amount of energy, half as much as the regular gasoline vehicle.

In another lifecycle study, The Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment determined that the car with the least impact would be an electric car run on hydroelectric energy.

However, according to MIT’s Laboratory for Energy and the Environment these vehicle technologies will not affect our consumption levels until they are in widespread use, which may take up to 20-50 years. By that time it may be too late.

Even if we may be able to drive electric vehicles on renewable non-polluting energy, there are still indirect impacts of cars on the environment. Cars lead to sprawl, which uses up farmland and animal habitat, encouraging increased vehicle miles traveled. Roads also fragment animal habitat and leach toxins into groundwater. Building and maintenance of roads pollute the environment. Dependence on cars decreases community interaction within one’s neighborhood and makes it less likely for people to get daily exercise–not to mention noise pollution and deaths.

Maybe a better option is to create communities that are easier and safer to get around without a car. Safe, comfortable and interesting environments with useful destinations within a quarter-mile encourage people to walk and bike. I can bet that light rail is safer, holds higher capacities and is less expensive to maintain compared to cars and roads. Carsharing and carpooling are also options for times when it is necessary to use a car.

Maybe when we are able to vote in politicians who do not succumb to car-friendly lobbyists will we be able to think outside the car, so to say, and build healthy and vibrant communities where the better choice really is the most desirable.