A bi-partisan group, dubbed the “Gang of Ten”, through compromise and the swallowing of a little partisan pride, has come up with proposed legislation that most Americans can support and is really good news for the environment. And it actually might do everything it’s intended to do: reduce our need for foreign oil, reduce gas prices, and build a stronger economy.

Democrats may not get their way for a “wind-fall” profits tax on oil companies, but the plan still calls for the elimination of $30 billion in oil company tax breaks. Republicans will not get to drill in Anwr, but they will still get to drill 50 miles or more off the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. And though a lot of environmentalists will not be happy with the legislation’s call for the speedy development of nuclear and liquid coal plants, at least the liquid coal plants will only be allowed if they capture their carbon emissions.

This new environmental policy should be aggressive enough to please the most avid environmentalists. It calls for $20 billion to be spent over a 10 year period to transition 85% of American cars and trucks to use something other than gas or diesel in the next 20 years. At the same time, this bill calls for strong conservation provisions, generous consumer tax credits, and for all domestically produced energy resources to stay in the United States. It even calls for the establishment of a National Commission to help overcome any obstacles to reaching it’s ambitious goals.

This is a serious bill and it should develop a ground swell of support from consumers all accross the political spectrum, leaving our politicians with little choice but to embrace the legislation. After all, swallowing a little partisan pride is good for the country. Our representatives in Washington should all do more of it.

 PDF

Filed under: Politics and the Environment |

San Francisco developed a plan to enhance bike riding for its residents and create a safer biking environment. In 2004, the city released a 527-page plan with maps, analysis, and a call for more bike lanes and better bike parking. With the improvements, they had hoped to increase bike commuting to 10% of the total commuting in the city

While bikers loved the plan, local citizen Rob Anderson was opposed. He claimed that bicycle lanes would increase pollution. How, you ask? Well, he said that stealing perfectly good street space from cars and giving it to bikes would increase congestion, leading to emissions from idling. Anderson successfully convinced a judge to halt the plan while the city develops an environmental impact report.

On the whole, Anderson sounds like a local eccentric with too much power. He states in his blog that the city’s plan is an “attempt by the anti-car fanatics to screw up our traffic on behalf of the bicycle fantasy.” He ran for a seat on the city’s Board of Supervisors in 2004 and received 332 of 34,955 votes, so clearly the public does not agree with many of his policies. Despite what might be considered cantankerous ramblings, Anderson does have one good point. He complains that bikers often consider themselves above the law. I would have to agree.

I live in a city with numerous bike lanes and merely moderate traffic. I bike to the library weekly and walk wherever I can. But the city’s cyclists often ignore rules put in place to make everyone safer. They often run red lights while riding in bike lanes. Daily, I’ll see them riding on the sidewalk in broad daylight (relegating my dog and me to the grass) while a spacious bike lane exists five feet beside it. And rarely do they wear helmets, even when cycling with their helmeted children.

It’s difficult to imagine that bike lanes could increase congestion, but I would certainly love for the police to enforce cycling laws as often as they enforce them on motor vehicles. I’ll give you that one concession, Mr. Anderson. But I will continue to live with a personal “bicycle fantasy.”

 PDF

Filed under: Climate & Pollution, Eco Travel, Transportation & Alternative Fuels |

Walking through a plot of fresh grass in your bare feet feels glorious, right? But what if you could saw a patch of grass into your flip flops? Would you do it?

I don’t think I would be game for such footwear, but apparently the creators over at Krispy Kreme – yes, the guys behind the glazed doughnut – thought otherwise.

That’s because when they interviewed a more than 1,000 workers throughout the United Kingdom, 81 percent of them said a walk in the park makes them feel more at ease.

So, the doughnut empire thought, “Well, why don’t we just combine the two, giving people a stroll through the park 24/7?”

But wait, there’s more: Purchasers of the flip flops also get to grow their own grassy kicks, waiting three weeks for their shoes to sprout more than 5,000 blades of grass. The bonus, however, is that once the grass grows, it can last up to four months if it is watered on a regular basis.

The eco-loving footwear has yet to hit the market, but Londoners are receiving free pairs to test out during their commutes to work.

If grass under your feet is not the earthy approach you are seeking, then you may want to test out one of these other, less literally “green,” shoe options:

*Simple Shoes: All shoes are made from recycled, earth-friendly materials.

*Hemp Oasis Shoes: Shoes made from, you guessed it – hemp!

*Patagonia Footwear: Comfy, environmentally-friendly shoes.

 PDF

Filed under: Green Business, Green Humor, Green Living, Sustainable Cities, Transportation & Alternative Fuels |

This article about the Sahara being green several thousand years ago gave me a fresh perspective on climate change. It turns out that climate change is, after all, a natural and cyclical process our planet undergoes every few thousand years or so. Deserts becomes forests and vice-versa. Rivers dry out and new ones appear in another hemisphere. Now where do we stand on all this? For us these shifts may mean wars, starvation, billions of lost lives, destroyed economies…

If miniature changes in the planet’s orbit cause such changes on its surface — how small and vulnerable do we have to be to call the latter “big?” It is exciting and frustrating at the same time: we are powerless in face of the grand proceedings, but at least we now have the tools to record and analyze some of them. The fun part about being small is that everything around you is so big!

 PDF

Filed under: Climate & Pollution, Water Issues |

I’ve seen an interesting documentary recently, it’s called Earth: Biography. It’s a visually stunning tale of our planet — how it came to be, how the volcanoes operate, what are the tectonic plates, how ice affects our climate and so on. The documentary employs computer animation to visualize some of the hypotheses it presents, but the digital rendering can’t match the video sequences of erupting volcanoes or the underwater footage. Nature still beats man in that department.

I did some thinking afterwards — it’s difficult not to, because the show gives you a completely new perspective on the planet’s climate and environment — and arrived at the conclusion that we sometimes arrive at conclusions too fast. For instance, we don’t like deforestation and we fear the melting of the ice and the raising of the sea level. Yet all these catastrophes had already happened, and many times! It’s only that we, humans, were not yet present to witness them. My other thought was: maybe instead of finding ways to stop them, we should use our technology to adapt and to use them to our advantage?

 PDF

Filed under: Climate & Pollution, Green Technology |

The concept of an e-book makes sense – you have the ability to read hundreds of books, magazines and newspapers on a digital reader, all while saving the more than 20 million trees that are cut down per year to produce books in the U.S.

But you are also using energy which is surely generated in a coal-fired plant, polluting the environment with toxins and chemicals. Not to mention that such energy is eating away at the ozone. Global-warming here we come.

Lets also not forget that you are investing in a piece of equipment that may someday end up in a landfill along with some of the other now-worthless junk you have tossed throughout the years.

But then we venture back to the whole paper saving issue, and the circle of thoughts leads us right back to square one: To e-book or not to e-book?

Paper reading definitely does create more greenhouse emissions than the e-book reader – about four times more – with newspapers being the biggest offender.

Then again, however, there is still the energy factor that runs hand-in-hand with an e-book device. But in a Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Two Book Options the study author, Greg Kozak, found an e-book reader created less total waste during its life span than printed boxes.

Of course, there is still the recycling issue. Many reading device producers, however, offer recycling services for the batteries used for the gadget and device itself once it is no longer of use. One example is the Amazon Kindle recycling program.

One more thing greenies worry about: The toxins that may be released into the air from the use of an e-book reader. It’s a question that still leaves room to be answered.

Another option for the e-book includes readers, such as the Adobe Digital Editions, that are available online. But, then again, there is still the issue of generating energy and toxins by use of a computer.

So, the question – a tricky one – is for you then: What are some of your thoughts on the e-book versus paper reading debate? Do you think one is better than the other?

 PDF

Filed under: Climate & Pollution, Green Business, Green Technology, green media |