As if there isn’t enough bio-diesel controversy over the food for fuel debate now we have a little skirmish arising here in San Francisco. When we walk by any San Francisco restaurant (particularly the ones that have that delish yet oh so bad for you fried cuisine) we can smell where this fuss originated – the fryers. Yes, it’s that oh so wonderful french fry grease that companies like Blue Sky Bio-fuels and Got Grease work with to create biofuel. To us this method makes much more sense to reuse old oil and grease than to the create fuel directly from real food.

In this case the grease skirmish remains between the City of San Francisco and the private sector. Both Got Grease and Blue Sky pick up grease (usually for free) from small restaurants, but now the City jumped into the fryer and collects it as well. The fact that the City collects the oil isn’t a problem but the fact that the City has been using health inspectors to secure oil from the restaurants smells like burnt oil to us. Apparently a letter from the City exists that says something to the effect of “The City has been so busy collecting restaurant oil that we haven’t had time to write up violations.” Should we call this mess “Greasefellas”?

We’re all about promoting recycling of oil and grease but this slippery slope of “socialist” thinking doesn’t exactly scream fair competition. Apparently the City uses taxpayer dollars to pick up grease from Google and Stanford University which aren’t exactly in San Francisco. Also, the City ships the grease to Nevada. That’s not what we hoped the City would do to lower its carbon footprint. Aren’t there enough biodiesal plants in the Bay Area?

Hopefully free market conditions will prevail because we don’t want this controversy to impact our thinking when we head out for fish ‘n’ chips.

In this case the grease skirmish remains between the City of San Francisco and the private sector. Both Got Grease and Blue Sky pick up grease (usually for free) from small restaurants, but now the City jumped into the fryer and collects it as well. The fact that the City collects the oil isn’t a problem but the fact that the City has been using health inspectors to secure oil from the restaurants smells like burnt oil to us. Apparently a letter from the City exists that says something to the effect of “The City has been so busy collecting restaurant oil that we haven’t had time to write up violations.” Should we call this mess “Greasefellas”?

We’re all about promoting recycling of oil and grease but this slippery slope of “socialist” thinking doesn’t exactly scream fair competition. Apparently the City uses taxpayer dollars to pick up grease from Google and Stanford University which aren’t exactly in San Francisco. Also, the City ships the grease to Nevada. That’s not what we hoped the City would do to lower its carbon footprint. Aren’t there enough biodiesal plants in the Bay Area?

Hopefully free market conditions will prevail because we don’t want this controversy to impact our thinking when we head out for fish ‘n’ chips.

But if you travel by car, you can still cut your fuel usage, save money and reduce your carbon footprint by driving smart.

1. Look into going by train or bus instead of by car or plane.

Taking a train or a bus, instead of driving or flying, results in less global warming pollution per person for the miles traveled (and may cost less, too).

On average, taking a trip by bus produces the least amount of greenhouse gas per passenger mile, followed by train travel, then air. Cars, light trucks and motorcycles contribute the most to global warming pollution.

Put another way:

• Air travel results in nearly two times as much global warming pollution as intercity bus travel.
• Rail produces slightly more greenhouse gas emissions than buses.
• Cars, trucks and motorcycles produce three times the pollution of buses.

These comparisons assume the vehicles are not filled to capacity on average. Trains come out even better in comparison to planes when both are full. (Note that Amtrak offers discounts on some routes for people over age 62.)

2. If you decide on a road trip, get your car in good shape.

Getting better gas mileage is no longer just about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It’s also about saving some serious money.

By following these rules of thumb, you will save gas and money — and your car will last longer.

• Keep your engine tuned properly. Checking spark plugs, oxygen sensors, air filters, hoses and belts are a few examples of maintenance that can save a vehicle owner up to 165 gallons of gas per year — for a potential savings of $625 a year (based on 12,000 miles of driving per year and $3.79 a gallon, nationwide average as of 5/19/2008).
• Check the tires. Have your wheels aligned and keep your tires properly inflated. Low tire pressure wastes over two million gallons of gasoline in the U.S. every day. Keeping your tires properly inflated raises your car’s gas mileage by about 3.3 percent.

3. If you’re renting, choose a fuel efficient car.

The rental car business is slowly turning over a green leaf. Many of the major national rental companies (such as Avis, Budget, Enterprise and Hertz) are offering a small number of fuel-sipping hybrids like the Toyota Prius in selected cities.

If a hybrid is not available, a subcompact, compact or economy car usually goes easier on the gas and is less costly to rent than a larger vehicle.

Get more details at Yahoo’s Green Center and find the top cars by green rating to help you select a rental car that meets your family’s needs.

4. Plan your trip well.

Part of the fun of a road trip is the adventure of exploring unknown territory. But getting lost and going miles out of your way is no fun — and wastes precious gas. So map out your route and keep maps handy to recheck.

A car navigation system is one high-tech way to keep on track in unfamiliar areas and get to your destination without wasting time and fuel.

5. Pile your friends and family in the same car.

Is one big, packed car better than two small, half-empty cars? The answer depends on the average gas mileage of the vehicles being compared.

But in general, if the larger car has a fuel economy at least half that of the two small cars, then it is more efficient to take the one large car. Here’s the math.

Take this hypothetical example: an SUV that gets 15 mpg on average versus two cars that get 30 mpg. For two people on a 30-mile trip, you’d burn roughly two gallons of gas in the SUV , and you’d also burn two gallons in the two cars (one gallon per car times two cars).

So in this case, the two options consume the same amount of gas. If the SUV had higher gas mileage, it would be the better option, and if it had lower gas mileage, it would be the worse option.

The average car in the U.S. carries 1.6 passengers, so if you carry more than that, you’re helping to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint. Plus, you can pool expenses and save on gasoline.

6. When you’re finally on the road, drive gently.

You can increase your gas mileage by as much as 50 percent for highway driving (and by five percent for stop-and-go city driving) simply by accelerating and decelerating smoothly and slowly. Aggressive driving, such as mashing down the accelerator or the brake, uses an extra 125 gallons a year on average — so by driving gently you can save $473 a year in today’s prices.

7. Follow the speed limit.

You’d be surprised at how much fuel is squandered by driving over 60 miles per hour. Generally, each 5 mph over 60 mph you go is like paying an extra 20 cents per gallon of gas.

To keep your speed down while taking in more local color, consider taking less-traveled back roads, rather than the Interstates. It’s easier to keep the speedometer below 60 mph when other cars aren’t whizzing by you at 85 miles an hour!

8. Avoid unnecessary idling.

When you are unloading or packing your car, turn off the engine. An idling car gets zero miles to the gallon and contributes to global warming pollution. Contrary to popular belief, restarting your car does not burn more fuel than leaving it idling.

Learn more about cars and global warming at Environmental Defense Fund.

Sources

• CBS News: “Rental Cars Slowly Going Green“
• fueleconomy.gov, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• “The Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from The Union of Concerned Scientists” by Michael Brower and Warren Leon.
• Transportation Energy Data Book, U.S. Department of Energy

According to Mother Jones, a developed world baby’s carbon footprint is quite large:

Between 2000 and 2050, the U.S. will add 114 million kids to its population. Africa will add 1.2 billion—but their respective CO2 emissions will be the same.

One American child generates as much CO2 as 106 Haitian kids.

Zahara Jolie-Pitt will produce 45,000 lbs of CO2 yearly, compared with 221 lbs if she still lived in Ethiopia.

A typical baby goes through 3,800 disposable diapers in her first 2.5 years.

96% of American babies wear disposable diapers. In China, only 6% do. In India, 2%.

China claims its one-child policy has prevented 400 million births—saving 1.5 billion tons of CO2 in 2004 alone.

China is often criticized for its one-child-policy as a restriction on personal freedom.  I am not a proponent of laws that dictate the demographics of a family, but I do think that through education, we can have a significant impact on helping families decide the right number of children for themselves and the environment. I believe in educated choice.

I do have a few friends who have three or more children.  One friend was accosted by another mother as being environmentally irresponsible for having three children.  For many environmentalists, having children feels like a hypocritical action.  Angharad Penrhyn Jones said in the Guardian:

Eco activists spend their lives agonising over the planet’s future - but that doesn’t stop them having children. We mustn’t give up hope.

It is a personal decision whether or not to have children.  I believe it is possible to live by environmental ethics and have a child, obviously since I am a mother.  The amount of carbon left behind as individuals and families is the most important factor, whether we have children or not. It is all about carbon emissions. If you leave a very small family’s carbon footprint, you are being eco-responsible and can still have children.  It is one reason why I live-off-the-grid and grow my food.  Just remember:

American children make up 4% of the world’s population, but they consume more than 40% of the world’s toys.

And while the mark we leave upon the environment by adding to it, through our increased carbon emissions, is increasingly important and, sadly, dire, what we take away from the environment is just as crucial.

So thanks to KeepGreenGoing, “a blog developed for anyone who wants to become more environmentally friendly,” I was pointed to the “individual water footprint” calculator at WaterFootprint.org.

Similar to the carbon footprint, ones water footprint is made up of the water that is required to produce the goods and services that one consumes. The calculator asks you to measure statistics such as how much cereal or meat you use, how many cups of coffee or tea you have per day, how many showers you have each day, and many more.

How much meat you use may seem like an incongruous question to ask though, when you’re dealing with water. Sure there is the water that the cows or chickens drink, but beyond that…? Well according to the stats, a kilogram of beef requires 16,000 liters of water, whereas to produce 1 cup of coffee, 140 liters of water is needed.

So head along to WaterFootPrint.org to take your own water footprint test, and see how much water you are taking away from the planet.

credit: PoppyW at Flickr under a Creative Commons license

I am irritated by the debate, by well-meaning food folks, about whether eating local food is really a good way to reduce the impact of your food choices on carbon emissions. This debate suggests a phony choice - if food miles matter, then nothing else does. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“Food miles” are a measure of the distance food travels from farm to plate. As far as I know, this concept caught fire after a 2003 study came out from the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture comparing food miles traveled by local produce in Iowa and conventional produce within the U.S. The study found that the non-local produce had traveled an average of 1500 miles, compared to 56 miles for local produce. Since then, there has been a lot of overgeneralizing of the 1500 mile statistic: the original study looked at only 16 crops, and excluded crops grown outside the U.S.

Local food advocates, including me, have suggested that one of the many benefits of eating from your local area is that it will, in general, reduce the carbon footprint of your food. Others have responded by finding all the other aspects of food production, including chemical inputs of conventional farming, the massive carbon footprint of factory meat production, processing, and food storage, to argue that local food is not important. They are right, of course, that there are many factors that influence how much carbon food contributes to the atmosphere. My answer is, so what? Of course there is often not a simple linear relationship between food miles and carbon emissions. But it does not follow that food miles don’t matter.

A recent study published in Environmental Science and Technology made the following claims:

1. Food accounts for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Most greenhouse gas emissions (83%) from food come from the production phase, while only 11% come from transportation.
3. In an average U.S.household, meat and dairy account for about half of the greenhouse gas emissions from food.
4. Switching away from red meat and dairy to vegetables or even fish, poultry and eggs substantially reduces the carbon footprint of your food.

This is a useful study. But it has been used to argue that food miles are irrelevant, just because other food choices (factory farmed meat versus vegetables) are so important. And, it leaves out all the other factors that so often make locally produced food carbon friendlier. The local food at our farmer’s markets and grocery stores is mostly organic, unprocessed, and, if its meat, grass-fed.

Other articles have questioned the food miles concept, and have suggested it is very difficult to make good choices. I think this is silly.

If you stop for a minute to think, it obvious that many factors will affect the carbon emissions associated with a particular food. Conventional vs. organic techniques, use of fuel in cultivation, mode of transport, processing, storage, and on and on. Trucked, flown, or shipped? Refrigerated, frozen, cooked, or canned? Does this mean food miles are a useless concept? No. But it is overly simplistic as a complete guide of what to eat. I’m sure you can reason this out for yourself.

So rather than argue that food miles are irrelevant, we need to just use our brains a little bit when we decide what to put in our mouths.

Larry Lev, an agricultural economist at Oregon State University, told me once you can sum up the motto of industrial agriculture as: “Just eat it.” He was suggesting, I think, that our entire agricultural system is based on each of us, every day, not considering what we are eating, where it came from, how it was produced, how it makes us feel, what it does to our planet, or even, often, how it really tastes.

I believe he’s right. And once we start to think about these things when we eat, everything will start to change for the better.

In 2006, Evanston, IL, which hugs Chicago’s border to the south, and Lake Michigan to the east, signed the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement along with more than 800 US cities. Those cities who signed the agreement aim to lower carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2012.

In an effort to achieve carbon reduction to 1990 levels, more than 130 dedicated citizens formed nine task forces, and devised broad recommendations on how this progressive and diverse city, home to Northwestern University and a lively downtown, could reduce its carbon footprint. Last weekend, a broad coalition of citizens and city government workers unveiled a draft of the Evanston Climate Action Plan.

The new building that houses Jewish Reconstruction Congregation-Evanston (JRC), of which I am a member, was the best locale in town at which to hold the meeting. Completed in February, 2008, this LEED-certified synagogue embodies the spirit of the Kyoto Accords.

Steve Perkins, the convener of the Network for Evanston’s Future,was enthusiastic about the high turnout at the meeting. After having presented the draft to the public, the Evanston city council will consider it. “We are aiming for the city council to adopt the plan,” Dr. Perkins said. He cited the need for support for the plan not only from residents and local businesses, but also from the 6 non-profit organizations in Evanston (this group includes Northwestern, 2 hospitals and the local public school districts). He urged the non-profits to work together to devise ways to lower green house gas emissions. “If these institutions don’t respond, people will get angry,” he said.

Susan Besson, co-chair of the Public Relations and Communications Committee, agreed that local non-profits need to show their support for the plan. “The PR committee conducted some focus groups,” she explained. “Most people say that either government or industry is most responsible for climate change,” she added. But getting everyone to agree on how to tackle carbon emissions will be challenging. “Each group has different to-do lists,” said Ms. Besson.

More energy efficient public transportation, sustainable buildings, better food production and distribution–these are just some of the goals set by the 9 task forces that make up the Evanston Climate Action Plan. Michael Drennan, a member of the solid waste and recycling committee, stressed the need for businessses to work together to improve recycling and waste removal. “Currently, each business contracts individually for waste removal,” he said. The task force hopes to bring businesses together for more efficient waste removal and a lot more recycling. Taxes on plastic bags and bottled water may also lie in the future.

Reducing Evanstons’ carbon footprint by 13% in 2020 will require major changes by the people who live in my city, the local businesses and the non-profits. But for the more than 300 people who listened to the draft proposal last weekend, the work has already begun.

Image courtesy of Pierre Marcel via Flickr

My preaching, my free advice to business owners, my reaching out to people who never consider their carbon footprint–it all happens spontaneously. But it keeps happening, and it feels like the right thing to do. A few months ago, while shopping and talking to the owner of my two favorite women’s clothing boutiques here in Evanston, IL, where I live, I started explaining to Kelly how she could make her businesses greener. I gave her standard advice: install compact fluorescent lights, change to low-flow plumbing, get a more efficient heating and cooling system, recycle more. Even though I have no official training in how to green a business, the ideas popped into my head, and the conversation flowed naturally. As I presented the options to her, she listened.

More recently, during our annual trip to Charleston, SC, to celebrate Passover with my husband’s family, I found myself in the position of teaching far less enlightened small business owners how they could make their restaurants and businesses more environmentally friendly. We stopped for lunch one day at a small restaurant that serves tasty home-made soups and salads. Though the owners of Ladles are proud of their homemade soups, and they used some local ingredients, they serve all of their sit-down meals on disposable plastic plates, bowls, and cutlery. When I asked the manager if the restaurant recycled any of these products, and she told me that they did not, I pointed out that investing in some reusable serving items would be a much more environmentally friendly option.

The next day, while having a shared breakfast at the inn where we were staying, I met a couple who sold kayaks in North Carolina. In town for a boat fair, they also got some free advice from a green business advocate: me! One of the owners explained that they sold some kayaks that were made locally when I asked if they had a green business, the concept of a carbon footprint was completely foreign to him. I explained the concept of fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gases to him, discussed ways in which he could minimize his carbon footprint, and then finished my breakfast.

Striking up green business conversations seems to be happening more frequently in my life these days. I guess I am on a mission.

Image credit: zorilla at Flickr under a Creative Commons license

Not only do the calculators themselves have an impact, but they are just the tip of the metaphorical iceberg.

Beyond that, the thousands and thousands of pages that link to them also contribute to the total impact these carbon calculators are responsible for.

Link to full article.

Image source: Kim Hansen/Wikimedia

Ahimbisibwe owns a little plot of land on which she grows some of the trees involved in TetraPak’s contract to produce fresh air for all the pollution caused by its production processes. A case study of the carbon sequestration project on EcoSystemMarketplace.com reveals interesting insights into the practices of an emissions offsetting program.

The study reveals that when TetraPak UK started to scour around for options to trade carbons in 2003, the company didn’t get far all by itself. It found outside help at the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management (ECCM). The first elemental step in the carbon footprint reduction effort which ECCM consulted TetraPak on was the devision of a computer program calculating the actual damage done. TetraPak’s annual carbon footprint is now monitored, based on real data.

In 2004, TetraPak UK began to actively reduce carbon emissions, which had been determined at 11,780 tons for 2001. This is where Uganda comes in sight. A total of 80%, of TetraPak UK’s carbon program “materializes” from Ugandan projects. The remaining 20% comes from bio-mass and solar energy projects in India and Sri Lanka.

The program was successful. In 2004, a 13% reduction was achieved from the company’s 2001 footprint. There are no legal requirements guiding companies here, so TetraPak’s regime is more or less self-imposed. TetraPak said it would try for a 15% reduction target in 2005.

Ahimbisibwe was approached by ECOTRUST, a Ugandan NGO, to sign a carbon sequestration contract. She was not using one hectare of land that she owns and was interested in planting native species of trees on it for the benefit of the environment. The contract she signed provides her with an amount of $8 per ton of sequestered carbon. She’s expected to generate 57 tons over ten years. Ahimbisibwe is quite happy with this, also because she hasn’t signed away too lenghy a time span. She’s allowed to prune and sell the wood after 15 years.

A panel held at UCLA this month, dedicated to sustainability in business, put this issue in the spotlight and revealed some useful information for companies looking to reduce their footprints. A few key points:Everyone does it differently: Companies looking to go green do so in many different ways, according to their business needs, structure, and culture. At toy giant Mattel, for example, sustainability is engrained in the company culture, so it’s something everyone thinks about. Initiatives to reduce resources used in shipping, packaging and catalogs have helped the company to lower their energy usage, carbon emissions, and water usage.

Use your company’s common language to “sell” sustainability: If you’re looking to convince others of the benefits of going green, stay away from buzzwords (like “sustainability”!) and instead focus on the language already used in your company, perhaps terms like conservation and efficiency. Back up your ideas with analysis, and don’t forget to use your people skills!

Keep an eye on trends: Smart companies, like Roll International (owner of the Fiji water brand) are working on carbon footprinting to establish a baseline of their greenhouse gas emissions. Measurable improvemets can then be reported both internally and externally, which points to another key trend - transparent reporting. By communicating openly with stakeholders about all of their successes and challenges, companies not only protect themselves from accusations of greenwashing, but also share their lessons learned with other companies. A boon for those of you following in their footsteps.

Read more about his comments here.

Does the town of Holcomb, Kansas sound familiar?

I’m sure it does if you’ve read “In Cold Blood,” or seen the movies based on the book and its author Truman Capote.

In a perverted way that negative association has been somewhat of a godsend. People remember Holcomb; they immediately recall it as the place where a senseless and unspeakable crime was committed.

Unfortunately, it looks like Holcomb may be preparing for a sequel, featuring yet another heinous act. This time it involves the attempts of Sunflower Electric Corp.—along with several lawmakers—to force an expansion of the power company’s Holcomb facilities, which would include two hazardous coal-burning electric plants.

Call it “In Coal Blood,” if you will (sorry…if you hear a churning noise under your feet it’s probably just Mr. Capote spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken).

Back in October, Rod Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, with the support of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, rejected the air permits for the company’s proposed pair of 700-megawatt coal-burning electric plants, citing the devastating impact emissions from carbon dioxide—and other greenhouse gases—would have on the environment.

In other words, it was the first time a proposed power plant had been rejected by using a “global warming” defense. This defense certainly wasn’t far-fetched. After all, the proposed plants would spew some 11 million tons of CO2 annually, making them the largest new source of such emissions in the nation.

But, of course, the battle didn’t end there.

Sunflower Electric and its supporters in the state legislature continue to try and ram this project down our throats. They insist it is needed to meet rising energy demands in western Kansas; they also argue that it will lead to much-needed economic development in one of the poorest regions of the state.

Or as Greg Brady look-alike Sen. Sam Brownback recently put it:

“Expansion of the Sunflower facility would have created 2,000 jobs during construction and an additional 400 permanent jobs and billions of dollars in economic development.”

Two thousand temporary jobs and 400 permanent ones—is that all we get for destroying the planet? Well, heck, throw in 30 pieces of silver and you got yourself a deal!

Then again, I’m sure Brownback’s job estimates are low. After all, several other jobs might be created as a result of this expansion, namely hospital receptionists, pulmonary specialists, insurance claims adjusters…

Moreover, proponents also fail to emphasize that Kansans will only receive about 10 percent of the energy generated from the plants; the remaining 90 percent will be shipped off to Colorado and Texas. They conveniently overlook the fact that all of the waste—namely mercury dumped in the water—will remain right here in Kansas.

Perhaps that, too, will create more jobs: water inspectors, Hazmat workers, not to mention the voluntary citizen soldiers needed to fight off the giant mutant fish that will threaten to take over Kansas by 2011.

Still, even Sammy B. realizes that coal alone is not the answer:

“The new coal plants would be part of an integrated bioenergy center that would have significant benefits for the environment. For example, much of the carbon produced by the coal plants would be captured and used to grow algae, which would be crushed to make biodiesel. Ethanol, another renewable fuel, would be produced onsite by using methane gas from livestock facilities.”

So let me get this straight: we only need 10 percent of the energy a plant like this would generate, and we know that alternative methods (proposed only as supplemental energy) are available, and yet we want to go ahead and produce far more than we need simply so a corporation can cut a deal with two other states, all while destroying our own water. Sounds like a plan to me!

Let’s be honest here, the plant is not about meeting surging energy demands; it’s about making money. We could meet the energy demands with a combination of alternative methods that, while not perfect, would leave a far smaller carbon footprint—I mean, Brownback didn’t even mention wind energy, which capitalizes on one of our state’s greatest natural resources.

But all of that is a hard sell to the folks of western Kansas. Times are hard in rural America.

We can—and should—argue that the coal plants are not in the best interest of the folks out west, but we need to do more than simply shoot down the proposal. We need to offer them something concrete in its place. What that entails exactly is beyond my tiny brain, but I imagine it would require bringing politicians, environmentalists, alternative energy experts, and western Kansans together to show that alternative energy and jobs can be had through far less damaging means—and that the two concepts are anything but mutually exclusive.

I hope that Holcomb eventually shakes off its reputation as the setting for one of the most brutal crimes depicted in American literature. Here’s to hoping it comes to represent the small town of the future—one that simultaneously respects the environment and the needs of its residents.

There. I think I finally made Mr. Capote stop spinning.

I have a suggestion: Take a look at LiveNeutral.

Why? Well on a basic, financial level, they are a non-profit. And? And that means that offsets purchased through them are tax deductible. More, you say? The resulting lower overhead means better priced offsets as compared to similar for-profit companies offering similar quality offsets.

Proceeds go towards education efforts around climate change, in schools, corporations, and more. LiveNeutral is quite passionate on this front, as they see the real difference being made when people choose to alter their actions to reduce their carbon footprint. When employees of a company that’s going carbon neutral have a deeper, more nuanced understanding of what exactly it is that their company is doing, it can cause a greater impact.

Where do their offsets come from? The Chicago Climate Exchange. Who are they? They are:

…the world’s first and North America’s only active voluntary, legally binding integrated trading system to reduce emissions of all six major greenhouse gases (GHGs), with offset projects worldwide.

And this means? This means that it is directly correlated to emissions reductions at companies. CCX is composed of member companies that pledge a certain percentage reduction in their emissions each year. If they cannot meet that, they can purchase offsets from other member companies that are exceeding the reduction goal.

So that means you, as an individual or company, are able to purchase those same credits to support companies that are successfully reducing their impact on the planet. It also means that all offsets purchased through LiveNeutral make a difference that same year, and are not expired, as is the case with some other, bargain basement/large volume operators.

No smoke and mirrors here.

Brighter Planet, the brainchild of two college students and their economics professor at Middlebury College, ties carbon offset credits to credit card purchases. The interactive website lets users enter as much or as little personal information as they want and calculate their carbon footprint. The site can be updated manually, based on changes in activity and is automatically updated monthly based on carbon offsets earned using the Brighter Planet credit card.

It took me just a few minutes to set up a profile, which admittedly is not as comprehensive as other calculators available as it is based on averages by zip code and doesn’t include things like type of heating system and amount of public transportation used. But still, it’s a start.

Every $1000 dollars spent, using the Brighter Planet credit card, funds an estimated 1 ton of carbon offsets, roughly equivalent to taking a car off the road for 2,000 miles, or powering and heating/cooling a typical home for a month. Carbon offsets are supplied by Native Energy, a Vermont neighbor and leader in suppling carbon offsets. Projects are approved by an in house board and include development of renewable energy sources like wind turbines and methane abatement programs.

Started in 2005, following the Environmental Economics class in which the idea was born, the two students, Jake Whitcomb and Andy Rossmeisel joined forces with the professor, Jon Isham and set up shop in a two room office. Using their network of Vermont neighbors (like Native Energy http://www.nativeenergy.com/ ) and personal contacts, they set up an advisory board of heavy hitters, garnered seed money and attracted venture capital.

Key to their success is their early networking to bring on well connected and smart partners, often leaders in the environmental movement. Their unique concept attracted financial Goliath, Bank of America to issue the Visa and they were off and running.

Surely this idea will catch on in these eco conscious times and other players will enter the field. Brighter Planet’s advantage is in their interactive website that tracks the impact of users’ carbon offsets monthly and updates personal profiles. Next up is implementing functionality that allows users to join groups and decrease their collective carbon footprint. Privacy issues aside, Brighter Planet looks like it should enjoy a bright future.

Photo courtesy of Brighter Planet

Do you find yourselves searching for a green holiday gift that’s hip, relevant, and makes a difference in the fight against climate change? Well, look no further than WE ADD UP. WE ADD UP is a brand new global warming awareness project! It’s a global count of people committing to help fight global warming by taking simple steps in their everyday lives that make a big difference. WE ADD UP is an organic t-shirt campaign and every organic tee is custom hand-printed with a number - that number represents your unique position in the sequential global count! So if you were the 500th person to get counted in, the number on your shirt would be 500. The backs of the shirts feature different action messages - simple things that anyone can do to decrease their carbon footprint, like Bike, Unplug, Drink Tap, Organic, Mass Transit, Shower Together, Recycle, Buy Local - there are over 20 different messages to choose from for the back of your shirt. The design of the WE ADD UP tees is simple, clean, and appealing for both men and women - and all the tees are made of certified organic cotton that’s grown and sewn in the USA. The WE ADD UP line makes it incredibly easy and fun to get counted in the fight against global warming - and it lets us know that simple changes do make a big difference because WE ADD UP!

Be sure to check out the WE ADD UP website at www.weaddup.com — it’s a great site and very educational as well. You can read all about WE ADD UP’s Green and Giving Program - a portion of the proceeds from WE ADD UP shirts is given back to the planet and WE ADD UP even offers carbon-neutral shipping. A WE ADD UP shirt is one of the most unique and meaningful gifts out there - it represents a commitment to the environment and it’s a way to spread awareness at the same time.

Happy Green Gifting, Everyone!

Lead paint in toys, tainted dog food, factories pumping tons of carbon into the air to make Barbies, while we turn our SUV in for a Prius. Feel better now? Before you have a 60s flash back and begin to boycott Wal-Mart and begin weaving your own hemp cloths, ask yourself is this really the answer? Many of us still live in complete ignorance of how the rest of the world lives, but a growing number of us are starting to get it. We realize that just making changes that impact our household or perhaps neighborhood are just not