Sports Illustrated’s Michael Farber has written an open letter to Al Gore, pleading with the former Vice President to help green up the National Hockey League’s Stanley Cup finals format.

Farber is concerned with the NHL’s current 2-2-1-1-1 system, wherein two games of the best-of-seven final series are played on one team’s home ice, followed by two games on their opponent’s home ice, returning back to the first team’s home ice, then to the opponent’s again, and finally – if seven games are required – one final game in the rink where the whole thing started. Confused? Perfect! Consider yourself a hockey fan.

Farber is seeking a more environment-friendly configuration:

You see, a 2-3-2 final would be a blessing for the environment. The NHL would be doing its patriotic best to be green — beyond its recycling of Anaheim Ducks defenseman Sean O’Donnell.

Lame jokes aside, Farber’s assessment is sound, and he has the math to support his supposition:

Under the current system, and if the series goes the full seven, you will fly to Anaheim for Game 1, back to Ottawa for Game 3, back to Anaheim for Game 5, back to Ottawa for Game 6, back to Anaheim for Game 7 and then, finally, home. That is six cross-continent flights, which is a lot of jet fuel…. But if this were an ecologically-sound 2-3-2 final, Ottawa would fly to Anaheim for Game 1, home for Game 3, back to California for Game 6 and then back to Canada’s capital when it’s over. Two trips would have been averted….

The NHL, Farber points out, used the 2-3-2 format exactly twice before in the mid-1980s, but abandoned it – as it tends to do with most innovations, stuck forever in an old-school mentality that hockey purists prefer. Farber believes Al Gore is the sport’s best hope for a green change.

Canada generally seems to get behind green initiatives, so perhaps the Stanley Cup finals could be the next step. Or at least one of the next steps, for as Farber reasons, there’s always room for environmental ingenuity:

My next thought: fuel-efficient Zambonis.

Here are some stories I missed:

Al Gore was in Argentina, where he spoke before the biofuel industry there (May 1)
Argentina is looking to jump on the biofuel bandwagon by offsetting 5% of its fuel usage with biodiesel or ethanol within the next 3 years. If not implemented carefully, the diversion of food or cropland to biofuels could drive up commodity prices for the 25% of Argentina’s population who live in poverty, not to mention the already strained middle class. “Every potential solution must be handled carefully and the danger with biofuels is that extremely valuable forests will be destroyed unnecessarily,” said Gore, “Another danger is that, if it is not pursued carefully, it will drive food prices up.”

Just Say ‘No’ to Bad Biofuels (May 9)
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, RSPB and WWF have launched an advertising campaign against ‘the wrong kind of biofuels’. The ‘wrong kind’ being those produced in ecologically destructive or irresponsible ways, like rainforest-eating Malaysian Palm Oil. Campaign posters depict a gas pump handle being held to an orangutan’s head along with the words “Tell the Government to choose the right biofuel or the orang-utan gets it.” The groups are urging the government to avoid misguided biofuel mandates without implementing proper environmental safeguards.

Dairy Builds $400 million algae biodiesel/ethanol refinery (May 13)
Xl Dairy Group Inc. is looking to make a buck off the biofuel boom. Located 100 miles west of Phoenix, their new ‘XL biorefinery’ will produce both fuel and cow feed on-site, first from ethanol and later exclusively from algae. The company developed a proprietary algaculture system in which waste CO2 is bubbled through plastic tubes. By 2009, algae will be grown in the tube array on a 1/3 acre plot next to the dairy farm, all using waste CO2 from a nearby power plant. Algae, which can contain up to 60% oil by weight, will be pressed to extract the oil for biodiesel production. The pressed biomass can then be converted to ethanol or used as animal feed, but before the algae system comes online, the dairy will import 576,000 tons of Midwestern corn each year. Annual biofuel production is expected to be around 20 million gallons of ethanol and 5 million gallons of biodiesel. This is a great example of ‘co-generation,’ where waste from one process becomes fuel for another. I always thought dairy waste-water might be a good place to grow algae.

Cleaning up Emissions: CleanAIR systems announces PERMIT Filter/Silencer (May 15)
Everyone knows diesel engines can be dirty, often spewing black plumes of smoke out the exhaust pipe. But don’t forget about diesel generators, which provide backup power to schools, hospitals, power plants, government offices, and other buildings. Estimated to number 100,000, standby generators are ubiquitous if unnoticeable, and they contribute to local air pollution. Enter CleanAIR Systems and their new particulate filters/silencers designed to plug into existing generators. The filters, which look like giant metal boxes, are intended to substantially reduce particulate matter “by more than 85% and emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons by up to 99%.” CleanAIR Systems also makes particulate filters for older diesel vehicles (like schoolbuses). Good filters are key to the next generation of ‘clean’ diesels, and there’s no reason why existing technology can’t be retrofitted to meet cleaner standards.

Soap Makers/biodiesel producers aren’t happy about Big Oil getting biofuel tax credits (May 21).
In April, a small but very important definitional change was made to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under the new definition, ‘renewable diesel’ now means regular diesel with any amount of biomass blended into it, and this so-called renewable diesel qualifies for a $1.00/gallon tax credit. This credit is a windfall to already grossly rich corporations, and will also discourage real development of renewable fuels. As I reported in the April’s biofuel News Roundup, ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods’ have major plans to develop ‘renewable diesel’ from animal fat. It turns out that ConocoPhillips and Tyson weren’t planning on making biodiesel (as I reported), but instead are going to use thermal depolymerization to boil down animal waste into a diesel (an probably biodiesel)-like fuel, and blend it into regular diesel (thereby getting the tax credit). Not only are biodiesel manufacturer’s irate (Joe Jobe of the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) remarked it was “bad energy policy, bad agricultural policy, and bad fiscal policy.”), but the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) is worried about the future supply of animal tallow, which they say has already been driven up 80% due to biofuel subsidy. They have good reason to be worried if any oil company can now blend a small fraction of animal-fat based fuel into their distribution system and call it “renewable diesel”. A bill back by the NBB, the SDA, and 50 other signatories is now aimed at eliminating the tax credit.

That’s the news for May! Stick around next month for more biofuel news on algae aviation fuel, clean diesel vehicles, and more!

Before going any further, I have to admit that until I started paying attention to the research and development of alternative fuels with my two websites, I was paying little attention to environmental issues.

There’s no real excuse for that, so none is offered. A chance phone conversation with an old high school chum in the Midwest sparked my interest in ethanol and, eventually, the entire alternative fuels picture. That led to my establishing two websites: one a collection of links to news stories on research and development of alternative fuels; the other a podcast site covering the same topics. That’s when I first paid attention to the immensity of our environmental problems.

On April 1st of this year, a misunderstanding on my part led me to Green Options, and my eyes have been opened even further. And that has led to this state of not understanding the hostility some people have to cleaning up our environment.

What can it hurt to use less electricity, burn less gasoline by driving less, developing and using alternatives to fossil fuels, saving our forests, cleaning up our waterways and oceans? You and I know the drill here, so what can be so wrong that some local, state and federal lawmakers, to name only a few of a long list of dissenters, oppose our efforts? Do they have something to gain from our living in what is slowly becoming a toxic wasteland? Is it politics, money, power, a way to get noticed, or have they just been blind-sided by the promises of big industry and big profits? Maybe it’s a combination of all of that, but in any case, at the best, it's irresponsible.

A glaring case in point, the recent actions of Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn(R). Even today, 45 years after Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, Coburn has said he would block a planned resolution commemorating the 100th anniversary of her birth, May 27, 1907. Coburn, on his website, continued to vilify Carson and her call for the sensible use of chemical pesticides, including DDT, which was used during WWII in the Pacific and Europe to eradicate malaria-bearing mosquitos. DDT usage was banned in many regions, including Africa, in the 1970's and 1980's. On his website release, Coburn blames Carson, 43 years after her death, for millions of deaths in Africa due to malaria, simply because of that ban on DDT.

Carson's biographer Linda Lear, in response to Coburn's actions, stated that "Rachel Carson never called for DDT ban", or that pesticides never be used. She simply advocated for the responsible use of synthetic chemical pesticides. The United States banned the use of DDT in 1972, but not the manufacture or export of the chemical. It has and is being used in many countries, including Africa as we said, with somewhat limited results especially on mosquitoes that carry infectious diseases like malaria. They adapted quickly and have become resistant to DDT. Yet Coburn continues to beat his anti-Carson malaria-death drum.

This continuing knee-jerk reaction to Silent Spring by chemical companies and some of our lawmakers confounds me, especially after all these years. Some have said her book so aroused public awareness of synthetic chemicals and their impact on our environment that public pressure resulted in establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Could that be part of the reason?

We've all witnessed the scorn heaped on the efforts of so-called “tree huggers”. Environmentalists have been branded as “nut cases”, and Al Gore has been accused of trying to create a panic with his movie An Inconvenient Truth. Some loudly proclaim that global warming is a myth, created by far left special interest groups. Interesting, isn’t it, that many of those naysayers represent a far right philosophy and special interest groups? Harry Nilsson said it best with his CD The Point: "Everyone has one". Environmentalists are "hugging trees", and industrialists are chopping them down.

On the matter of global warming, let's give mother earth her due: she too has moods. Our planet is, after all, a living thing, constantly evolving as it has since its fiery beginning. My purpose here is not to debate global warming or offer any conclusions: there's enough going around without my input.

It all comes back to the same thing: what’s wrong with doing some industrial-strength house cleaning? Who is threatened, and why is there so much hostility? Or is it not so much a case of threat, as it is something we seem to have a lot of in this country?

It reminds me of a panel from cartoonist Wiley Miller, who's Non Sequitur is one of my favorites. It portrays two men sitting in a bar, one with a drink in his hand and a dour look on his face. He's watching the TV set on the back bar, with a smiling news commentator displaying a large arrow pointing downward. Around a bend in the bar is another man, a big smile on his face, his hand clutching a mug of beer. He says, "Yeah, I used to get depressed watching the news, too. Then I discovered the miracle of apathy." Is this who we are?

It took more than 4-billion years to create this beautiful planet, and we've managed to trash it in slightly more than a century. We call it progress (and in some ways it is), but in our rush to have more as quickly as possible, we've ignored our moral obligation to provide responsible stewardship of our environment. It just may be that we are the only sentient life forms in the entire, limitless cosmos. What a shame it would be if we destroyed ourselves by depleting our home of its natural resources, and failing to clean up our messes. Life would flicker out, and no one would notice. Our world would be empty, spinning aimlessly in the black void, a remnant of our carelessness. Humanity would never have existed; there would be no legacy to pass on.

How very sad that would be.

Additional Resources:
Wikipedia: Rachel Carson
The Time 100: Rachel Carson
Senator Coburn (R-OK)

by Ecotality blogger Bill Hobbs

Sign seen in front of Al Gore's mansion in the posh Belle Meade section of Nashville Thursday, indicating Gore is moving forward with plans for solar panels to help power his mansion. Here's a link to the the Belle Meade Board of Zoning Appeals meeting agenda - there are no details on the size of the solar panels, how much power they'll generate, or whether or not they'll be tied into the grid via a "net metering" arrangement so Gore can sell excess power to the grid through a "net metering" arrangement.

Tennessee is not a mandatory "net metering" state, though the local electric utility that serves Gore's house does offer the option for customers who generate their own power. But Nashville Electric Service does offer the Tennessee Valley Authority's "Generation Partners" program, which purchases customer-generated power from solar panels or wind turbines at a rate of 15 cents per kilowatt hour.

No word on whether Gore himself will be at the zoning board meeting to make the case for why he should be allowed to put solar panels on his house.

I've given Gore a lot of well-deserved grief - on this blog over his use of "carbon offsets" to present himself as "carbon neutral" even as he continues to consume large quantities of carbon-based energy, but he deserves praise for trying now to "walk the walk" and live the way he has long urged others to live in terms of using clean, renewable energy.

Gore will host the opening gala on April 25, which will also feature musical performances from artists participating in Live Earth, a series of concerts scheduled for July 7 to raise awareness of the climate crisis.

The seven short films are presented by the Save Our Selves (SOS) Short Films Program and are just a selection of the 60 films commissioned by the SOS. None of the films are more than 10 minutes in length and cross the genre spectrum. The seven films screened at the opening will be announced April 22.

Opening with a series of short films instead of an indie feature stocked full of celebs is unusual for a top film festival. But considering SOS commissioned prominent filmmakers to create these shorts, the big name factor will still be present and the shorts are guaranteed to be of engaging content and high production value. The decision by the Tribeca staff is also additional evidence of the trend that short films are gaining prominence and popularity - especially on the topic of climate change.

Via Washington Post; LiveEarth

What a week we’ve had in green gossip, from the Oscars with our dear celebrities drenched in green, to Al Gore being thrown under the bus, to Indian celebrities dressed in scallion skirts. In terms of the Oscars, I know you’ve heard — it was an eco-friendly, tree-hugging love fest. The king of the festivities, Al Gore, became the bull’s eye by morning. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research (Publisher's FYI: The TCPR is a "rightwing attack hack") decided to release Gore’s utility bills, that proved to be rather vast, in hopes of knocking him off his throne.

According to the article,

The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year. The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.

So perhaps the Tenessee Center decided to exaggerate slightly in the name of politics, but in the end, there’s a clear message: Al, turn off the lights! Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said: "Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger." Indeed it is.

In other news, Prince Charles isn’t happy about Happy Meals. He has long been an advocate of a balanced diet, especially in children to support healthy habits in the future.

The article states,

The prince, who owns the organic food company Duchy Originals, told an expert nutritionist what he thought of the famous fast food chain during a visit to the Imperial College London Diabetes Center in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday. Speaking to Nadine Tayara, he said, "Have you gotten anywhere with McDonald's, have you tried getting it banned? That's the key.

Is organic fast food next — or is this the end of fast? Next week is sure to be an interesting one – will Al Gore run for President, will ‘do you want fries with that,’ be banned from the UK? And about those scallion skirts, check out Ecorrazi for a photo!