The Great Lakes Water Resources Compact aims to protect the water rights of the eight states bordering the lakes: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Michigan’s approval of the agreement brings the number of states signed on so far to five: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and New York.

Why the need to protect Great Lakes water from leaving the Great Lakes? After all, combined, the lakes hold about 22 percent of the world’s fresh surface water. Should be enough to go around, right?

Wrong. With perpetual drought in the American Southwest and recent severe dry spells in the South and Southeast, the Great Lakes has a way of making other parts of the country drool. As the compact discussions move forward, though, it looks like those other regions will have to find other ways to quench their thirst and conserve what little water they might have. (Hint: Lake Mead soon won’t be an option.)

Not that piping Great Lakes water outside the region is all that viable anyway: one expert recently interviewed by National Public Radio estimated it would take $19 billion in infrastructure alone to get Great Lakes water as far South Dakota. Bringing it over the Rockies? Forget it.

Under the compact, water in containers larger than 20 liters, or 5 gallons, wouldn’t be allowed to leave the region, as that would be considered a bulk transfer outside the Great Lakes basin. Interestingly, the same limits would be placed on any other beverages made with Great Lakes water … beer, for example.

Oddly, as I write this, my parched neck of Northwest Florida just saw its first serious rainfall in weeks (months?), and I’m thinking of investing in a rain barrel. As a former resident of Chicago, I remember Lake Michigan water tasting pretty good, but I don’t think I’ll be getting another taste any time soon.

It’s disturbing that you could face fines for doing something that’s both a money-saver and good for the environment. Still, I thought it might help any would-be biodiesel home-brewers out there to know where to find more information about the laws that might apply to you. Here are a few sites I discovered that might come in handy:

Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center: This page on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Website gives a state-by-state summary of incentives and laws affecting homemade biodiesel, other alternative fuels and alternative fuel-powered vehicles.

The California Center for Sustainable Energy: According to this site, “The first 400 gallons of home-made biodiesel is exempt from federal taxation and anything afer 400 gallons is subject to normal federal tax rates.” The center also advises home biodiesel-brewers to check with their state to see if state fuel taxes apply to them. You’ll also find lots of good links here on home biodiesel production, equipment suppliers and biodiesel fueling locations in the U.S.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory: While this site doesn’t specifically address biodiesel tax policies, it does feature a large number of informative publications about biodiesel production, handling, use, quality, stability, compatibility, emissions and fleet evaluations.

Other sites with lots of information about all aspects of biodiesel include the National Biodiesel Board and its companion marketplace site, AllThingsBiodiesel.com, the National Biodiesel Foundation, an article on “Greasoline” at the Journal of Young Investigators and, of course, Wikipedia (here and here).

Image credit: Mejidori at Wikimedia Commons, released into public domain.

Mechanical engineering students Eric Williams, Chad Heinrich and Michael Schulist turned to the University of Central Florida’s local Chick-fil-A for used cooking grease, which they convert into biodiesel fuel to run their cars. They’re also passing along 20 percent of their home-brewed fuel to the university, which is using it to power trucks, lawnmowers and other diesel vehicles.

At a production cost of about 80 cents a gallon, the fry-based biodiesel is helping both the students and the university save cash … considering the current cost of petro-diesel at the pump is about $4.419 per gallon. And because the biodiesel burns more cleanly than fossil fuels, the fast-food fry grease is helping the students and school reduce their carbon footprint.

Image credit: J. Reed at Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license.

So I thought it might help to pose the future-of-our-energy question in another way: What do I WIMBY? (As in, Want In My Backyard?)

OK, here we go: Following are photos illustrating several clean and/or renewable energy options that could help us curb greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Which ones would you be willing to view from your backyard as a tradeoff for a cleaner, brighter future? Be honest now: I’m asking literally if you would say OK if one of these was what you saw when looking out of the window of your home.

Is it Nuclear Power?

Image credit: Anna Gomez at Wikimedia Commons, released into public domain.

Concentrated Solar Power?

Image credit: Sandia National Laboratory at Wikimedia Commons, released into public domain.

Distributed Solar Power?

Image credit: Downtowngal at Wikimedia Commons, under a Creative Commons license.

Wind Power?

Image credit: Dirk Ingo Franke at Wikimedia Commons, under a GNU Free Documentation license.

Hydroelectric Power?

Image credit: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation at Wikimedia Commons, released into public domain.

Tidal Power?

Image credit: TidalStream Partners at Wikimedia Commons, under a GNU Free Documentation license.

Or Geothermal Power?

Image credit: Gretar Ívarsson at Wikimedia Commons, released into the public domain.

I’ll be the first to answer: I’d have to say distributed solar (rooftop panels) and tidal. Honestly, I’d find all the others unsightly when viewed from my home. (Though I have to acknowledge that’s clearly selfish: if it’s a choice between saving the Earth — and civilization — from the effects of catastrophic climate change, I’d take any of the above.)

Of course, by the time any of us really has to make that choice, it’ll be too late to stave off a climate catastrophe. That’s the problem with NIMBYism.

Among the most worrisome findings in the paper: the Corps’ failure to “consider the potential for structural failure of levees and floodwalls.”

“As a consequence,” the NRC report states, “the true risk to homes and businesses and people behind structures has not been determined.”
The NRC paper, titled “First Report from the NRC Committee on the Review of the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Program,” analyzes a March 2008 draft technical report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That report, “Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Technical Report,” (LACPR) was mandated by the feds, who asked the Corps to develop a complete Category 5 hurricane plan for southern Louisiana.

The NRC authors gave kudos to the Corps for “recognizing that new approaches are necessary to achieve the overarching goal of reducing hurricane risks to the population and infrastructure of coastal Louisiana.” They also credited the Corps for using some innovative methods to assess potential storm surge and make decisions.

However, the NRC paper faults the Corps for not providing “clear recommendations with regard to preferred choices of hurricane protection, risk reduction, or restoration alternatives.” It also identifies weaknesses in the Corps report’s three main sections on restoration, nonstructural and structural solutions.

For example, when it comes to wetlands restoration, the Corps said that “all plans rely on sustaining the existing landscape.” The problem, according to the NRC, is the Corps doesn’t offer any evidence that keeping the landscape as is is possible, considering the rates of land subsidence, sedimentation, environmental degradation and future rises in sea levels.

“If wetlands cannot be maintained, the LACPR draft technical report misleads the public into believing that the present coastline can be held in the face of relative sea level rise,” the NRC authors write. “All plans that would rely upon maintenance of the existing coastal configuration then are suspect. Also, if wetlands cannot be maintained, decision makers and citizens ultimately will have to make hard choices about where restoration can take place and where it cannot.”

The NRC found other problems with the Corps report as well. For example, the report gave no evidence that different agencies in the area were working together effectively to make sure vulnerable areas were protected rather than developed.

“This phenomenon took place in the decades prior to Hurricane Katrina,” the NRC report states. “It is important that a similar process is not repeated in the future.”

Considering that much of the blame for the post-Katrina destruction can be pinned directly on the Corps (read about the LSU Hurricane Center’s forensic investigation report into the levee failures here), it’s disturbing to hear that the Corps continues to miss the big picture. The NRC has spoken, but will anyone in charge actually listen?

P.S. Hurricane season starts June 1.

Image credit: Infrogmation at Wikimedia Commons under a GNU Free Documentation license

With gasoline prices in the U.S. breaking new records weekly, for example, law enforcement officials are seeing more cases of cooking grease thefts from fast-food establishments and other restaurants. Why used grease? Because cooking oil can be converted into biodiesel fuel that can be sold at a cool profit.
Grease thieves have recently struck a Burger King in suburban San Jose, California; a Wilby’s Gas and Goodies in Warsaw, Indiana; a Cathay Hut and a Chick-a-Dee in Lewiston, Maine; a fast-food joint in Lavonia, Georgia; and various eateries in Colorado Springs, among other places. The trend has grown to the point where police departments and legitimate grease collecting companies are stepping up enforcement and attorneys are even developing a reputation as “grease lawyers,” the Christian Science Monitor recently reported.

As the cost of various metals — from common copper and bronze to the rarer platinum — go up, thieves are also taking advantage, pilfering everything from historic plaques to catalytic converters (which contain platinum). In New Haven, Connecticut, bronze landmark plaques and fixtures on a war memorial fountain have gone missing. Monterey County, California, has seen criminals take freeway guardrails, road signs, brass fittings from chemical tanks and copper wire from industrial sites. In Saginaw, Michigan, crooks working in the open have ripped aluminum from numerous houses. And around the country, homes left empty because of foreclosure are being stripped of copper pipes and other precious metals.

The metal-theft trend is also being blamed for a variety of accidents and mishaps, as industrial sites and homes stripped of critical parts spring leaks of gases or chemicals. A plant in California, for instance, experienced a toxic spill after parts were stolen, and an abandoned warehouse in Pueblo, Colorado, recently collapsed, thanks apparently to the theft of some critical metal structures. A food pantry serving Roanoke-Salem, Virginia, even lost about $1,500 worth of food to spoilage after thieves took copper tubing from its refrigeration system.

Finally, skyrocketing grocery prices are leading thieves to steal even from food pantry donations, as happened recently from the doorsteps of needy residents in Aloha, Oregon. Fortunately, the U.S. isn’t experiencing nearly as desperate a situation as developing parts of the globe. As wheat and rice stocks hit new lows and prices shoot upward, parts of the world — Haiti, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia and Mexico, to name a few countries — are seeing not only food-related riots, but a rising level of crop thefts, in which people are stealing food directly from farmers’ fields.

The rising incidence of various types of thefts around the country is spurring law-makers to consider a slew of new legislation to discourage the trend. Proposals are now in the works in states including California, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York and Ohio. In fact, the New York Post-Star reports that 35 states now have or are considering new identification requirements for the copper market alone.

Image credit: Hawyih at Wikimedia Commons, released into public domain. 

Environmental-minded residents of the Perdido Bay area at the Florida-Alabama border have been fighting that battle for years. The conflict in this case: the economic interests of International Paper, which operates a paper mill in the Florida town of Cantonment, vs. the lifestyle- and nature-oriented interests of the area’s residents.

As reported in an article in the Pensacola News Journal, resident Jim Lane remembers when the waters of Perdido Bay were so clear he could see through several feet of water to watch fish. Today, the 72-year-old says, he can’t see his toes when standing in the water.

Lane and like-minded residents of the group Friends of Perdido Bay place the responsibility for that change in water quality on the International Paper plant, which since the 1940s has been releasing its wastewater into Perdido Bay via Eleven Mile Creek. They’re now battling International Paper’s plans to divert that wastewater — 24 million gallons a day — into 1,400 adjacent acres of wetlands owned by the company.

International Paper says the plan, which would require the construction of a 10-mile pipeline to the wetlands area, would benefit Perdido Bay by allowing the wetlands to naturally filter the wastewater before the effluent enters the bay. The company adds the project would help the mill remain competitive, protecting 500 jobs and the region’s economy.

But residents say the wetlands can’t handle that volume of wastewater effectively and worry the pipeline will simply contribute to more problems in the area’s ecosystems. They’d prefer to see International Paper build treatment wetlands that could adequately handle the amount of wastewater produced by the plant. The company says that alternative is too costly.

Which side will ultimately prevail? A similar proposal by International Paper was turned down by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection last year.  This time, the company says it has more evidence that its plan won’t hurt the environment, but the Friends of Perdido Bay aren’t buying it. If the draft proposal to be reviewed at a public hearing in Pensacola this week is approved, they say, they’ll keep fighting to the bitter end.

It’s the “c” word. As in “conservation.”

Now, I appreciate all the diligent researchers and inventors working so hard to create the ultimate “green” bullet, whether it’s a never-exhausting source of clean energy, cheap and printable solar panels you can put anywhere, energy from garbage or carbon-dioxide-based plastics. But unless one of these near-magic solutions can enter the mass market in the next couple of years, we’re not going to make an appreciable dent in our resource and energy demands before the proverbial dirty word starts hitting the fan.

And that’s why conservation needs to become a much bigger part of the global environment discussion, and soon. Because that’s the one strategy that can start having a meaningful impact immediately. Not in five years. Not next year. Not even tomorrow. Now.

The recent blowback from the rush to biofuels is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. As reported in a story on National Public Radio, European Union scientists have checked the latest numbers on biofuels and have concluded that growing energy is not the way to go. They’re calling for an immediate halt in the EU’s crop-to-energy battle plan.

That’s not what a lot of politicians want to be hearing, though. For instance, when anti-biofuel protesters confronted one European official in the NPR report, he responded petulantly, “What’s your solution?”

Another protester had an eloquent response: “We have to start using less energy now,” he said.

Conservation. Let’s start seeing some multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for that.

The report, “On the Rise; Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming,” touts the multiple benefits of solar thermal power that the U.S. has barely begun to tap. One, it’s a clean source of energy that could replace other power sources that generate greenhouse gases and worsen climate change. Two, by storing thermal energy, it can generate electricity even when the sun isn’t shining. And ,three, it’s wildly abundant in the U.S., offering way more clean energy than we currently use on a daily basis.

The report notes that a 100-mile-by-100-mile solar thermal installation in the American Southwest could meet the entire country’s energy needs. That area, it further adds, is just a little larger than the amount of land in the U.S. that has been strip-mined for coal.

“If we are going to get serious about fighting global warming and addressing our energy challenges, solar energy must be part of the solution,” said Holly Binns, Environment Florida’s field director.

While the Southwest alone could generate more than 7,000 gigawatts of energy,  other parts of the U.S.  — including Florida — promise a large potential for solar energy development. The Sunshine State has some catching-up to do, but recently improved its clean-energy performance with the opening of the Sunshine Energy Solar Array near Sarasota. The 28,000-square-foot array, Florida’s largest to date, can generate 250 kilowatts of energy, enough to power about 45 typical homes per month.

Clearly, the state will need quite a few more like these to make a serious dent in its fossil-fuel consumption and carbon emissions. Florida officials hope recently approved green-energy legislation will encourage those kinds of developments. The bill includes, among other things, authorization for a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a renewable fuel standard and renewable portfolio standard that promotes wind and solar energy, and new building standards that call for higher energy efficiency in new homes and businesses.

At the national level, the Environment Florida report is also encouraging. With the right policies, it says, the U.S. could easily generate 80 gigawatts of concentrating solar power by 2030. That would be enough to power 25 million homes, reduce carbon emissions by 6.6 percent and create between 75,000 and 140,000 new jobs.

Good news — for a change — isn’t it? Let’s just hope the right people are listening.

On her blog, Kaufmann features do-it-yourself videos for a neat variety of eco-projects that let you reduce energy costs, recycle objects into useful items and add elements of clean, green living to your home.

The one that caught my eye in particular was a DIY WaterWall, which uses old water bottles or Mason jars to create a heat-absorbing, light-filtering inset to a problem window. Kaufmann walks you through the steps to create the WaterWall, then suggests cool modifications to beautify the project even more: adding sprigs of green or flowers in varying amounts to block even more light and add elements of nature to your window.

Kaufmann’s blog also features videos on how to make a unique and clever EcoBirdfeeder with used chopsticks, how to make plantable cards from waste paper, how to make a case for your iPod or iPhone from old denim jeans and lots more. She also sends out an e-newsletter, so you can learn when new projects are posted.

If you’re interested in learning more about Kaufmann and her work, you can find her at several coming events across the country, including the Gravity Free Design Innovation Conference in Chicago (May 13), the Dwell on Design Conference in Los Angeles (June 6) and Built Green Santa Barbara (June 13).

Based on data from the Uptime Institute, a technology consulting company based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, the McKinsey report finds that, between 2000 and 2006, the amount of energy needed to power data centers doubled, and that consumption is likely to double again by 2012. In the U.S. alone, we would need to build 10 new power plants by 2010 just to meet the growing energy needs of this country’s data centers.

The study also reports that, worldwide, data centers are now responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than the countries of Argentina and the Netherlands combined. If current trends continue, data centers around the globe will produce more carbon dioxide than all the world’s airlines by 2020.

In California alone, the utility company Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) reports that its service region (including Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area) has seen data center energy demands skyrocket from 50 to 75 megawatts a mere 18 months ago to 400 to 500 megawatts today.

The Internet energy drain is growing so rapidly that, of 311 data center managers in the U.S. recently surveyed by the Uptime Institute, 42 percent don’t expect to have enough electricity to run their operations in the next two years.

What’s the problem? Standard computing and data center operations, it turns out, have been grossly inefficient. Your typical personal computer operates at just 6 percent efficiency, while data centers manage an efficiency rate of 56 percent. To quote New York Times tech writer Steve Lohr, “In other words, if data centers were hotels, they would be bankrupt and shut down instead of growing like kudzu.”

While that’s the bad news, the good news is that, with a serious emphasis on energy conservation and improved efficiency, data centers could do much better than they now do. In fact, PG&E recently met with IT folks from 19 North American data centers to discuss rebates and other incentives that could help cut energy consumption. Other utilities — including Seattle City Light — are exploring similar measures.

Even the federal government is getting into the act, with the National Data Center Energy Efficiency Information Program, a joint effort of the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy. The program offers fact sheets, tools, links and more to help data center operators become more energy efficient.

Here’s hoping the efficiency efforts start making some serious dents in consumption soon: a global Internet energy crash is one more crisis we don’t need.

About one-fourth of all corn grown in the U.S. is now cultivated for fuel rather than for food. Meanwhile, the growing demand for both food and fuel is driving commodity prices for crops like corn to record highs. That means, even with the federal government’s generous subsidies for ethanol production, today’s biofuel profits aren’t what they used to be.

While the pro-ethanol corporate types aren’t ready to call it quits entirely, some are shifting into lower gear or putting biofuel plants on hold. Which makes for interesting viewing, courtesy of the Biofuel Deathwatch List at Google Earth. The national map features an assortment of those Google Earth, yellow-balloon-like markers, each one indicating the location of a planned biofuel refinery that has been put on ice because of “unfavorable market conditions.”

On-hold plants range from Pacific Ethanol’s proposed facility near Calipatria, California, suspended last December; to Biotown USA’s planned refinery near Reynolds, Indiana; to the most recent, POET Energy’s proposed plant in Glenville, Minnesota, which the company axed last week citing permitting costs and holdups.

And if you think the Biofuel Deathwatch map is interesting, you’ll probably also enjoy another compilation by Earth2Tech: the Google Earth locations of all the recently canceled coal-fired power plants across the U.S.

Penn launched the effort at last week’s Coachella Festival in Indio, California, urging festival-goers to join a three-biodiesel-bus trip across the country to volunteer their services in communities that need help.

“Revolution is a job for the young,” Penn told the festival audience. “This is the smartest, most technologically proficient generation of all time. This idea that I had was based on no experience necessary. What we’re gonna do is get on biodiesel buses, and I want you to go over to a booth today and go with us to New Orleans.”

The ensuing caravan, which garnered about 150 volunteers, went on to make stops in Tucson, where Dirty-Handers could help with AIDS relief and anti-deportation activism; Austin, where they could help the Environmental Conservation Society or take part in an immigrant rights rally; and Houston, where they could participate in projects led by TEJAS (the Texas Environmental Justice Activists Society).

Once in New Orleans (just in time for the city’s annual Jazzfest), the Dirty Hands Caravan planned to tackle several programs: working in a health clinic, planting trees, helping Common Ground Relief with wetlands restoration or creating baseball fields in parks damaged by flooding.

The group expects to leave New Orleans on Tuesday, May 6, and return to California the next day.

The Corporate Crime Reporter tells the story in great detail, but here’s the tale in a nutshell:

Thirty-five years ago, Brownfield and Clyde Lear established Learfield Communications, now one of the top college sports radio broadcasters in the U.S. Lear bought out Brownfield in 1985, but Brownfield continued to broadcast for the company from its studios, eventually hosting a daily show called The Common Sense Coalition. On that show, he recently started assailing Monsanto, the multinational king of genetically modified crops and a company known for going after farmers who knowingly or unknowingly grow Monsanto-patented crops.

On his April 16 showApril 16 show, Brownfield characterized Monsanto’s aggressive nature as goonish and Mafia-like. He also said the mainstream, big-money media rarely takes on the issue, pointing out — presciently, it turns out — “The multinationals hate me, like the devil hates holy water, because people that tell the truth aren’t welcome on these major networks.”

Big problem, as Monsanto is an advertiser on Learfield Communications broadcasts.

The sales executives weren’t happy. The news executives weren’t happy. Brownfield’s former founding partner Lear asked him to lighten up. Brownfield said no.

And so it is that Brownfield’s last broadcast from Learfield’s studios will take place at the middle of this month. Lear says he will help his old partner build an Internet broadcast studio in Brownfield’s home, but that Learfield Communications will no longer have any connection to Brownfield’s show.

Brownfield told the Corporate Crime Reporter he couldn’t comment on the matter until the end of the month.

Bet he’ll have a heck of a lot to say after that, though.

I’ll say this now: the guy’s got a lot of guts. And I’ll bet there are plenty of farmers who quietly agree with him.

That’s because, as of this week, the daily newspaper is being distributed exclusively online. The Capital Times’ last daily print edition went out on Saturday, April 26.

A Monday article in The Washington Post notes the Madison newspaper, like almost every traditional print paper across the country, has seen a steep drop in circulation over past decades. The switch to an exclusively online edition (outside of a free weekly insert in The Wisconsin State Journal)  also comes with a deep cut in employees  — from about 60 to 40, but the paper promises to continue delivering local and breaking news seven days a week.

An editorial in the last print issue tells readers “The Capital Times will be a daily newspaper of the sort Americans will know in the 21st century … What would (Capital Times founder William T.) Evjue — who was not just a newspaperman but a pioneer when it came to embracing radio and television as vehicles for communicating progressive ideas — say about this change?

“He would caution us not to worry about the form The Capital Times takes, but rather to be concerned with the content and character of our message. And, as always, Evjue would be right. We will keep on giving the people the truth and the freedom to discuss it, and all will be well.”

Only now, fewer trees and fewer newspaper delivery miles will be needed to give that truth and freedom. Way to go, Cap Times!

Seems logical, right? But knowing how your transportation costs can affect your decision on where to live isn’t easy. Fortunately, along comes a new online tool that makes it considerably easier.

The Housing + Transportation Affordability Index lets you see which parts of the U.S. are truly affordable when you factor in both housing and transportation costs. The index lets you zoom in and explore 52 metropolitan areas across the country and, to be honest, it’s both fascinating and a little addictive.
Go to the index’s results for the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater area, for example, and you’ll see the outlying regions — the suburbs and exurbs — are the most affordable when considering housing costs alone. Switch to a view that shows affordability when both housing and transportation costs are factored in, and the picture is almost entirely reversed. Many of those “reasonably priced” suburbs, it turns out, have housing-transportation costs that eat up 48 percent or more of the region’s median income.

Cooler still is the index’s “goal for affordability” tool. When you highlight that choice for a region, you’ll see in stark teals (less affordable) vs. yellows (more affordable) which areas let you keep housing and travel expenses below 45 percent of median income.

The index was developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology in partnership with The Brookings Institution.

“The index tells an alternative story of affordability than we’ve become accustomed to hearing,” said Scott Bernstein, president of the Center for Neighborhood Technology. “The real estate pages may list 2- and 3-bedroom homes for under $150,000 in suburban communities. That sounds affordable, right? But once you factor in transportation costs, the bargain goes away. Transportation costs can be as much or more than housing costs. The index protects consumers by divulging those costs and helps planners and decision-makers work toward providing truly affordable housing.”

Check out the index yourself to see how your area measures in true affordability. I bet you’ll discover it gives a whole new, greener meaning to the old real-estate cliche of “location, location, location.”

Several communities across the U.S. are considering four-day work weeks for government employees as a way to reduce commuting demands and gas consumption. The various efforts have typically been inspired by today’s record-high fuel prices, but the idea promises other benefits too: lower greenhouse gas emissions, happier and more well-rested employees and cost savings elsewhere (i.e., less energy to cool/heat and light offices, reduced need for work-time child-care, etc.).

Among the places eyeing shorter work weeks are Queen Creek, Arizona and the state of Virginia. Others experimenting with the switch include Marion County (Ocala), Florida, and cities in California, Arizona and Nevada.

Where some agencies see a benefit, though, at least one sees a downside. Officials in Ohio are moving to dump their state’s flex-time program for employees, citing a need for better customer service for their citizens.

While I understand the frustration of visiting a government office only to wait long, excruciatingly boring hours for help from a grossly understaffed office, I don’t think Ohio’s strategy is a wise one. Maybe the state is just doing it wrong.

If a four-day work week can help the environment some, increased telecommuting could help even more. Consider these stats from one recent study: if the 40 percent of U.S. workers who could work from home did, the nation could cut oil consumption by up to 625 million barrels per year, reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 107 million metric tons and save $43 billion in gas costs. And the commuting time saved would give each employee more time for other things: the equivalent of five extra weeks of vacation each year.

Now who, green or not, couldn’t get behind that?