Urban Ecoist

I know, I know, everybody is talking about eating local and seasonal so as to lower your carbon footprint — in that your food doesn’t travel thousands of miles by carbon dioxide spewing trucks because it comes from within 100 miles or so, among many, many other reasons.

But are you drinking local?

Check this out. National Geographic has a one-pager on the carbon emissions from the transport of wine around the world. Another blogger (who says we are all a bunch of hacks?) Dr. Vino Tyler Coleman and Pablo Paster, a sustainability engineer, put together some numbers and Nat Geo put together a rather telling graphic.

The gist of it is that if you are really serious about how many natural resources it takes to put food and drink in your belly, you should not be choosing you wine based on what’s trendy or highly-rated, but instead choose wine (and spirits) from a more local source or if you do have a thing for foreign wine, choose wine from the country that can ship it to you via ocean trade routes.

For instance, according to the map, Napa Valley wines are big emitters due to the lengthy road journeys from California to the East Coast markets. But those same California Cabernets are shipped via boat to Asia and Australia, and thus the cargo ship shipping lowers those per bottle emissions. So, you must figure out where your wine is from, and then figure out a better way to get a buzz.

I happen to live in Oregon, so I am one of those lucky imbibers that lives close to three pretty top-notch wine regions. But I happen to love French and Spanish wine. I could either give up my love affairs with Gigondas and Piorat, or I could move to the East Coast of the US (given that I would remain in the US). This graphic and the idea behind it gives me extra motivation to drink more Pinot Noir. But what about that poor oenophile in Iowa City?

Now, I grew up in Michigan, so I can relate to land-locked winos. And for those of you that don’t live near a coastal port or within a few hundred miles of such ports, there is local wine everywhere. I learned to love Gewurztraminers and Reislings living in Michigan, as those are the grapes that grow well there. I have tried sparkling wines from New York’s Finger Lakes region that were equally tasty. The Chardonelle I tried in Misssouri — not so good, but they did have other varietals. I have even had some Petite Syrah from Mexico.

Use this topic as a challenge to not only find local wine, but local beer and spirits. You may just like what you taste. If not, have a few more drinks, and you will.

wine, transportation, carbon footprint, wine industry, carbon emissions, cargo ships, trucks, New York State wine, Michigan wine, Missouri wine, Oregon wine, French wine, Spanish wine, eat local, local foods, seasonal foods, beer, spirits

Despite my issues with coal, some climate modelers have discovered that even if no new coal plants were built from here on out, it would not make much difference in terms of carbon dioxide emissions.

Great, we really are screwed…

Carnegie Mellon’s Jay Apt and Adam Newcomer took a whole bunch of climate data and broke everything down into four scenarios. The first scenario was inertia, that is keep the coal burning to meet increased needs, but with the help of the traditional energy sources we have all come to love. We’ll call this one the control scenario.

The three experimental scenarios all ban new coal plants. Scenarios Two and Three presume that energy needs will continue to increase at historical levels, as seen below in the graph from the Energy Information Administration.

And this graph is only data for the United States…

Anyhoo, Scenario Two is modeled on the premise that wind energy will replace coal in terms of new energy needs with natural gas as a complement. Scenario Three works on the premise that new needs will be met with only natural gas. Scenario Four takes the path of no increase in energy needs (as in the US finally starts using energy efficiently like Jimmy Carter told us to).

The final scenario quenches increased energy needs with wind and natural gas as well, but it assumes that U.S. residents won’t require any more energy than they do today–if, say, people become much more efficient in their energy usage; the only increase in demand would come from a growing population. The team applied the model to three main regions in the United States: the Midwest, Texas, and parts of the East Coast. –Science

Needless to say if you read today’s title, the cut backs in new coal power will not make a significant enough dent in carbon emissions to perhaps maybe possibly mitigate the worst effects of anthropogenic global warming.

In the best cases of the scenarios, carbon emissions may be cut by almost half along the East Coast of the US. However, the low end of the possible range of emission declines in that same case is only 18%. So sure, emissions could be cut by 18 to 48% along the East Coast, but many climate scientists feel that reductions must be cut by 80% in order to stave off significant climate change.

You can click on the link here to read the full set of numbers from the models.

And the ineffectual reductions are not the bad part. If coal goes out of style, and natural gas takes over as America’s energy choice, prices for natural gas could increase from 175 to 500%. Awesome.

energy, coal, power, electricity, United States, power plants, efficiency, climate change, global warming, energy usage

Seems the companies that are supposedly making the world safer for your child are not really all that concerned about the next generation after all.

Climate Counts recently released its findings as it pertains to responsible climate-centered action on the part of the toy making and children’s equipment industry, and let’s just say if it really were a Lego World, it wouldn’t be headed for a healthy future.

The big winner (and in that I mean the best of the very sad bunch) is Hasbro with a whopping 40. Woo-hoo. That puts them one point better than Kraft, a company that exploits the stupidity of the American Public with every single-serving snack pak of Corn Nuts. That 40 places Hasbro well above Sara Lee (13) and ConAgra (21). By contrast, the highest-scoring company rated by Climate Counts (I’ll detail the criteria below) is…ta dah…Nike.

Nike? Really? Isn’t Nike exploiting cheap labor in Southeast Asia to make $100+ basketball shoes? I thought I wasn’t supposed to support Nike.

That is exactly the issue I have with Climate Counts. Sure, it rates a company on 4 categories encompassing 22 criteria, and that marks the end of their purpose. But in the case of highly-rated Nike and Coca Cola, there are other issues to look at before deciding to buy a company’s products (as Climate Counts suggests). But that is yet another topic for another day, urban ecoists.

Oh, yeah, the four categories…

* MEASURED their climate “footprint”
* REDUCED their impact on global warming
* SUPPORTED (or suggest intent to block) progressive climate legislation
* Publicly DISCLOSED their climate actions clearly and comprehensively

So, you see, labor practices or safety is not taken into consideration when it comes to Climate Counts, but the point is to simply draw attention to how large corporations are dealing (or not) with climate change.

And returning to today’s topic, it seems that children’s products manufacturers are definitely not leading the Corporate Social Responsibility arena. In fact, the only industry that doesn’t beat Hasbro’s 40 is the airline industry (top airline Northwest rated a 39). And the hotel industry tied with Marriott’s 40. But there is no reason for the Toy/Kid Stuff industry to pat itself on its lead-painted back. No other industry had 62% (8 out of 13) of its major companies score a big fat Zero.

toy makers, childrens equipment, industry, Hasbro, Lego, Kraft, ConAgra, Sara Lee, Climate Counts, climate change, social responsibility, CSR, Nike, Coca Cola, children, environment

At first, I was attracted to this article because it was about the inevitable famines the world will suffer, due to climate change and a 50 percent increase in the world’s population. But then reading through, I noted that the US State Department’s Chief Science Advisor, Dr. Nina Fedoroff, made a strong statement about genetically-modified crops.

Like Professor Beddington [Britain’s chief scientist] and Bob Watson, the chief scientist at the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Dr Fedoroff believes genetic engineering must be expanded if the world is going to be able to feed itself.

Genetic modification, she said, can have strong environmental benefits, such as significant reductions in pesticide use, while improving crop yields. Of crucial important will be the ability of scientists to identify genes which enable plants to survive in hot and dry zones so that they can be used to help the most productive crop strains survive and thrive as global warming intensifies.

She said it was important that both GM technologies and conventional crop development were encouraged now because the process of bringing new strains from the laboratory to the field took years. — TimesOnline

Ah, CM crops. Thay sound like such a great idea, don’t they? Just go in and tinker with a plant until it doesn’t need water to grow or frightens away certain insects. But we have a multitude of examples of science being used to catastrophic ends, and I am of the opinion that genetically-modifying crops is most probably a bad idea.

However, that said, we may not have a choice in the matter, and due to desperation, we may just have to play god and hope that things work out.

The “top US Scientist” as the title of the Times article suggests, is in France for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference this week. Dr. Fedoroff is there to talk about food shortages and the action needed to prevent them.

Fedoroff is “convinced that food shortages will be the biggest challenge facing the world as temperatures and population levels rise. Food security in the coming years, she said, is ‘a huge problem’ that has been met with little more than complacency. ‘We are asleep at the switch,’ she said.”

It’s funny that she’d advocate for GMO’s over population control. If there will be a shortage of food in 2030 that will affect 1 billion people, and the population at that time would be around 9 billion, why not instead try to promote family-planning and reduce the future population by one billion people? Problem solved.

And yes, I’m being glib.

US, State Department, Nina Fedoroff, famine, food shortage, climate change, population

Am I the only one who sees the Nano from India’s Tata Motors as both a blessing and a burden, and yet, as an American, I feel guilty about pointing out that this little car that could could increase the total number of cars on the road by say 750 million, the approximate population of India. Ok, that number is far-far-fetched, but my point is that even a small relatively gas-efficient car will create more emissions overall, especially when the vehicle is being priced to attract first-time car-owners. And yes, I am aware how selfish I am by saying that, as I do own a car.

It’s kind of that same feeling I got when I read this article in the New York Times today about stimulus money building a toll-road through a Texan prairie outside of Houston. Even the best intentions has undesirable consequences, and unfortunately these consequences are getting more and more dire as we pump more and more carbon into the atmosphere.

I realize that we Americans have had our cheap cars for about a century now, and we did way more than our fair share of contributing to the current carbon crisis, so how is it fair to criticize affordable individual transportation options in other countries? It is not fair, but yet, fair has little to do with this, unfortunately. We are all going to suffer the affects of climate change, and the poorest among us will be hurt the most. How is that fair? The poor pay for the environmental degradation needed to provide us all with luxury goods that we perceive as necessities. Ah, but I am being rather pessimistic today.

Luckily, the cheap car that India’s growing middle class is clamoring for (and thanks to the low price of about $2000 USD, even the lower classes may be able to afford the Nano) has a small engine that is fairly fuel-efficient at 20-26 km/liter, or approximately 47 to 61 miles per gallon, which beats the US average by a lot.

So, yes, I applaud that India is becoming wealthy and more people are moving out of poverty and into relative affluence through hard work and innovation. And I appreciate that the People’s Car gets good gas mileage. I just hope that the flip side of that wealth will also look at responsible transportation options. It is nice having a car around for some things, but it is better to use public transit or a bike for everyday commutes. It just worries me that the US has exported it’s rather toxic culture to the rest of the world for so long that it might be too late to change the lens.

Tata Motors, Tata, India, Nano, cheap car, People’s car, transportation, cars, vehicles, carbon emissions, US

File this one under dire news…

Less than two weeks after the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger (who despite all my fears has turned out being one of the better governors out there — I may just yet change my mind about actors going into politics) declared a state of emergency in the state of California due to drought, a new report details that California will be hit hard by rising sea-levels in the next century.

Maybe California should start building more desalination plants like the proposed Poseidon desalination plant below.

First, it is true that California is suffering under drought conditions. The US Drought Monitor shows an improvement this past week, but that improvement is from “exceptional drought” to “severe drought.” Click here to go to a nifty 12-week animated drought map of the US. But for the month of January and February, the northern “ice cap” of the High Sierra’s presented a dangerous situation for a state that must support not only a huge population, but also a major agricultural region in the Central Valley.

California’s state water board is busy crunching the data on conservation efforts underway, including the Governor’s request for voluntary residential reduction in usage and if need be, the state may have to impose water rations.

Secondly, the Pacific Institute has released a report on possible impacts of sea-level rise on the California coastline, a popular spot for not only residential areas but also waste dumps. If the dire predictions of the IPCC come true, California could expect losses in the billions when it comes to property and infrastructure lost.

And the bad news is that most of the available climate models used by the Pacific Institute do not take the possible melting of Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets into account, so the estimates of a 1.5 meter rise in sea levels may be a little on the low side.

Geez, poor California…If an earthquake doesn’t destroy the coastline, global warming will.

governator, California, Schwarzenegger, drought, state of emergency, sea levels, global warming, agriculture, infrastructure, climate change, Greenland, Antarctica, water, rationing, Pacific Institute, High Sierras, earthquake

For the time being, let’s hope so.

First, a little backstory…The Arctic is melting. Whether you want to blame man for that or not, it is happening. Summer of 2007 saw the lowest “minimum”* of sea ice since, well, the last Ice Age. 2008’s figures are not any better, though not as minimum as ‘07.

*sea ice minimum refers to the point in the summer season in which the ice cap melts to it’s lowest level. Conversely, the “maximum” is the point during the winter in which there is the most ice. Simple enough.

So, with Arctic ice sheets abating, that means that the Arctic Ocean is becoming more and more navigable to ships and fishing boats. Also, it seems that some species of fish that prefer colder water may be moving into Arctic waters. If the fish go to the Arctic Sea, so will the fishing boats.

Or so it would seem. But somehow the North Pacific Fishery Management Council are becoming a more forward-thinking government agency, and fishing boats may not be allowed in Arctic waters off of Alaska. The NPFMC is meeting in early February to make the final determination on whether or not to create legal fisheries in the Arctic Ocean.

To get a little more detailed, the NPFMC may one day allow fishing in the Arctic, but not until proper studies of the region and its ecosystem can be conducted. The fish populations should be studied first and maybe fished second if the populations can withstand harvest.

You can do your part (besides making sure the fish you consume is sustainably harvested) in this decision making process by writing the NPFMC and letting them know that you support the decision to make an environmental survey of the Arctic fish stocks (and future immigrant populations fleeing warming waters in more southern seas) before allowing commercial fishing concerns to pillage and plunder in order to make more fish sticks.

Click on this sentence to go to the PEW Environmental Group’s website to send an email (save paper) to the Chairman of the NPFMC asking him to close off Arctic waters to commercial fishing.

Arctic, Arctic Ocean, fisheries, fishing, commercial fishing, Alaska, ice, global warming, climate change, fish, populations, stocks, North Pacific Fishery Management Council, sustainably harvested

This is interesting to me, not because Robert Redford is involved or that gas companies are funding the protesters, but because this exemplifies the contentious relationship between society and wilderness, the urban and the ecoist.

I have tried to bring to your attention to Bush’s attempt to sell off parts of the Utah wildlands to oil and gas companies — well, not sell, but lease at bargain prices, so that the oil and gas companies can make billions off of publicly owned minerals.

A group called the Congress of Racial Equality has set up camp in Utah just in time for the Sundance Film Festival in order to call out Robert Redford and his protests of the Bush Landgrab Auction. CoRE’s stance is that by protesting the sale of mineral rights for some of Utah, Robert Redford hates poor urban people.

CoRE believes that by not allowing the natural gas companies drill in Utah, prices will increase for Grandma on Social Security back in New York City. That may seem like a simplified version of the protest, but I have only broke it down into its real merits. Granted, fuel prices will rise this winter season, but not because Robert Redford is helping an environmental group urge Obama to overturn the late lame duck actions that did end up getting passed.

I am all for equality and environmental justice, but I gotta say that CoRE is off its rocker. To even surmise that Robert Redford or any opposition to drilling or mining is what is driving up fuel costs is so unbelievably wrong that it is almost laughable. CoRE would be better serving its members and those it claims to defend by protesting the oil and gas companies for making so much money off the backs of the poor. CoRE should be protesting outgoing (hallelujah and praise the lord) President[sic] Bush for allowing Big Oil, Big Gas and Big Coal from running rampant during his two ungodly long terms and make all those billions on substances that already lie beneath public lands. Not only that but CoRE should be protesting the whole system of a government that will pump so many dollars of subsidies into the fossil fuel industries so as to skew the cost of those fuels so low that no other fuel source can compete cost-wise — until those fuels start running out after causing catastrophic damage to the ecosystem.

Yeah, maybe you should look at your actions, CoRE. Is it really Redford that is using his fame to preserve Utah so he can “look at the scenery” or is it CoRE that is using Redford’s fame to push the agenda of ExxonMobil, a major funding source for CoRE’s operations?

protests, Utah, lease, mineral rights, wilderness, Robert Redford, Sundance, natural gas, festival, Congress of Racial Equality, Exxon, ExxonMobil, oil, gas, coal, mining, drilling, fossil fuels, heating costs, environmental justice

Here is an interesting scheme to get cars out of a congested city. London Mayor Boris Johnson is urging Londoners to sell their cars in order to reduce the number of cars on London streets by more than 100,000.

It’s called the Car Crunch London initiative. You see, London is going to be hosting the Olympics in the summer of 2012, and like most cities hosting said games, London is forced to rethink its transportation infrastructure in terms of traffic congestion. No one visiting a world-class Olympic city wants to be stuck in traffic — nor does anyone else for that matter, but it seems that the spotlight of hosting an Olympic Games really makes city planners and administrators wake up and smell the exhaust fumes.

If you live in London and sell your car, you can get a two-year free membership in car clubs called Streetcar that provides you with a vehicle when you need it. You need not own a car, pay for insurance and upkeep, gas or petrol as they call it on that side of the pond. This kind of car-sharing program is best for people who don’t need a car constantly, obviously, but car clubs can also be useful for anyone who wants to cut down on their driving. Maybe use public transit for that commute to work and only drive a car for shopping trips in which large parcels need to be carried or travels to areas where public transit doesn’t go, like a forest or parkland.

From an article announcing the initiative in The Standard:

Boris Johnson said: “Car clubs are a fantastic way for Londoners to reduce their motoring costs and help cut carbon emissions in the capital.

“Campaigns like this, which spread the word about the benefits of car clubs, are to be welcomed. We are supporting the growth of these services by helping 21 London boroughs to introduce 500 car club vehicles into London this year.” Transport for London said every car club vehicle takes 20 privately owned vehicles off the road.

Brett Akker, Streetcar’s cofounder, said: “We’re creating a win-win opportunity for Londoners. By taking up the Car Crunch challenge, they get to rid themselves of the costs and hassles of owning a car in the city, while dramatically cutting their carbon footprint.

This may be a good idea, to offer a financial incentive to get people to give up their cars. However, any reader living in America may be scoffing at the idea of giving up their cars and joining a car club, even if it were free (for a while). Sadly, in the US, aside from larger metropolitan areas, going without a car is next to impossible. Heck, I am staying at my Aunt’s outside of Detroit, Michigan and you cannot even walk anywhere because there are few sidewalks and walking alongside most of the roads around here may get you killed by automobiles going fifty miles an hour with little to no regard for pedestrians. And if you bring up the idea of giving up the SUVs and minivans to most Americans, you will get a funny look.

But why not give up your car, or at least one of the cars in the typical American household? Do you really need it? Maybe you could carpool with others in your neighborhood to a transit center or with others at your workplace that live in the same suburb. It’s just an idea, unless of course you enjoy paying for new tires, new brakes, tune ups, transmission and engine repairs, and insurance.

Maybe I am just talking crazy…but way to go, London. At least you are taking some form of action to reduce the number of cars on your narrow roads…

London, car crunch initiative, transportation, public transit, car clubs, carpooling, car sharing, cars, automobiles, traffic, congestion, infrastructure, Olympics, 2012, city planning, city driving, gas, insurance, American drivers

I want to say yes here, but it really depends on what your bio-diesel is made from.

Researchers at the University of Illinois have tested various sources of bio-diesel and have determined that the best choices for bio-diesel and ethanol production that actually reduce the net carbon released into the atmosphere is …drumroll, please…perennial grasses.

The researchers analyzed published estimates of changes in soil organic carbon in landscapes converted from natural or agricultural land to biofuel crops.

They focused on corn, sugar cane, Miscanthus, switchgrass and native prairie grasses. They also evaluated the impact of harvesting and using corn stover (the plant debris left over after corn is harvested) as a cellulosic biofuel source.

Their analysis showed that converting native land (grassland or forest) to sugarcane dramatically reduced soil carbon, creating a carbon deficit that would take decades to repay. While perennial grasses add carbon to the soil each year, DeLucia said, it could take up to a century for the sugar cane to rebuild soil carbon to former levels on native land.

Harvesting the corn residue for cellulosic ethanol production also reduced the carbon in the soil. The more plant residue was removed, the more the soil carbon declined.

Planting perennial grasses on existing agricultural lands had the most beneficial effect on soil carbon, the researchers found. –SPX via Biofuel Daily

Maybe you have and maybe you have not heard that corn-based ethanol is not the wisest choice for biofuels. First, you have the issue that 20% of American-grown corn is being diverted into ethanol production, and that is corn that is not being consumed as food, by Americans or anyone for that matter. Most ethanol is produced from corn kernels, so it’s not like this is waste plant matter that would be tossed or composted anyway. No, this is food stuff that no one is eating, which means if there is less corn in the supply side of the economic equation, the price of corn has gone up. With the price of corn rising, more and more farmers (yes, especially the big corporate farms) are planting corn.

With more corn going into the limited amount of arable farmland available to the US, that means less of everything else being planted. So, we now have an issue with other food crops supplies decreasing — pushing up the prices of well, everything. Have you noticed the cost of a loaf of bread lately? Less wheat is being planted and the decreased supply leads to increased prices, even if demand were to remain steady.. which it won’t as more and more people join us on this wacky blue marble in space.

So, what kind of biofuels are okay, for all us urban ecoists that want to help the planet, live lightly, be kind and rewind our consumption practices, etc? The latest study, that is going to be published in next month’s Global Change Biology Bioenergy journal (try saying that three times fast), details that every time the Earth is plowed or dug up, that action releases carbon. Soil acts as a carbon sink, and that carbon is what makes soil good for crops. Plants really, um, dig carbon dioxide, remember?

Hmm, what “crop” needs no plowing, or at least not yearly plowing? Perennial prairie grasses. The grasses grow during the growing season, can be cut or harvested at the end of that season, and the plants spend the winter dormant, and then grow again the next season. No plowing, no seeding, and little to no fertilizer required.

How ironic that so many farmers spent years and years and years plowing under the native prairie grasses of the Great Plains, only to find that those perennial grasses just may save the US transportation fleet one day…

bio-diesel, University of Illinois, biodiesel, biofuel, biofuels, corn, ethanol, perennial grasses, prairie grasses, carbon, carbon dioxide, crops, farms, farming, wheat, prices, food supply, carbon sink, plowing

When will humankind learn to choose a cautious path? Why is it that our species, and I am especially pointing fingers at the American sub-species, is quick to make a poor decision on a subject that would be best served with a little more understanding.

The Alaskan Pollock has become a “go-to” fish for a good portion of the American fishing fleet. Pollock is used in place of other seafood, such as crab and lobster, as well as in fish sticks and those unspecified-species-of-fish-sandwiches you get at fast food places. For years, fisheries experts have cited the Alaskan Pollock of an example of a successfully (sustainably) managed fish stock.

And now, the realization that maybe we are in fact overfishing the Alaskan pollock is starting to dawn on those who pay attention and worry about other species that also eat pollock — stellar sea lions, fur seals, whales, among other marine creatures.

I mentioned in Urban Ecoist’s step-sister site, Daily Science Dose, that it has been reported that a large percentage of Alaskan pollock are moving to the cooler waters of Russia. As waters around the Aleutian Islands, which are the spawning grounds for Alaskan Pollock (also known as walleye pollock), warm up, the fish are following their food to colder waters, leaving the American waters behind and depleting the numbers that American fishing ships are catching.

Well, not only are the pollock movin’ on up to the East Side, but there are also less of them.

Pollock was not always the fish of choice for US Consumers. Remember cod? Maybe you don’t actually, as it has been severely over-fished and extreme hard to find. The World Wildlife Fund has gone so far as to call cod endangered. Because cod was taken off the menu for a cheap white fish, pollock stepped in to fill the gap. And now, 20 or so years after the cod fishery started sinking, and the pollock became the substitute of choice, scientists are finding evidence of plummeting numbers of pollock. Low enough to cause concern among environmentalists and scientists that are allowed to be honest about the situation (i.e. not paid for by the fishing industry).

And that brings me to the fur seal. Northern Fur Seals live on the remote Commander Islands (the westernmost Aleutians that are actually closer to Russia than Alaska) as well as the Pribilof Islands up in the Bering Sea (map at right). And the fur seals, after almost being wiped out by over-hunting (they have really nice pelts), face a similar fate if their main food source is over-fished.

Greenpeace has launched a campaign to try and help the fur seals before their numbers also plummet. The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is about to set the 2009 quota for pollock, and you can write a letter to the NPFMC to speak out against their ideas to raise the quota rather than lower it in order to try and restore the pollock population. If you want to get involved, check out the link here.

Also, you may want to avoid pollock. If demand is driven down, we may be able to rectify the situation that certain fishery management councils won’t.

pollock, Alaska, Alaskan pollock, walleye pollock, American fishing, fisheries, Pacific, Commander Islands, Pribilof Islands, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea, Russia, fish stocks, fishsticks, fast food, imitation crab, imitation lobster, stellar sea lions, fur seals, whales, Greenpeace, cod, overfishing, North Pacific Fisheries Management Council

I finally watched WALL-E last night. I write finally because I usually see Pixar films in the theatre, usually within the first two weeks of their release. I never got around to seeing WALL-E as I hate going to the cinema now that I have to sit through television commercials, and my boyfriend is a big poophead when it comes to seeing so-called kids films.

Now, there was some disgruntlement among some caused by WALL-E’s rampant environmentalism. Some said children shouldn’t be exposed to the Church of Al Gore, and some claimed that Disney was being hypocritical in regards to its merchandising habits when it comes to films like WALL-E. I happen to agree with the second issue, but the first is ridiculous.

Kids should be initiated into the world of environmentalism. You know, I have resented that label since I was young and idealistic, thinking that we could save the planet. I resent it even more now, as no one should not be an environmentalist. Being human and environmentally-mindful should be one and the same, and the fact that some don’t get that yet is why the Earth is in so much trouble. However, to be fair the beginning of the Industrial Age was a while ago, and I doubt that first person to burn coal or a gallon of gas could even imagine what devastation that act would cause. But there is so much more to the environmental crisis than just carbon dioxide — we do produce a lot of crap, both in the form of trash, but also in the form of dangerous chemicals and toxins that are destroying the planet and its inhabitants much faster than global warming.

The more children of today are exposed to the truth the better. Let’s get beyond the Bush Regime’s maybes and omissions and upcoming Republican party spokeswoman Sarah Palin’s not caring to know the causes of climate change.

I loved WALL-E, by the way. My boyfriend liked it, too, although he kept complaining about WALL-E having human emotions. He just doesn’t understand kids’ movies.

WALL-E, Disney, Pixar, environmentalism, environment, trash, chemicals, toxins, Al Gore, children, kids, movies, films, Republican, denial, Palin, Bush

Greenpeace has just released it’s updated ninth edition of the Guide to Greener Electronics. As this site is not Flash-enabled, I cannot embed the neat-o graphic to give you a quick view of which companies are making the grade in responsible manufacturing as well as disposal and recycling of their obsolete gadgets.

Oddly, as I traded in a Nokia (which leads the rankings) for a Motorola cell phone, I find myself on the lower end of the responsibility scale. Same with my Xbox 360. Luckily, the Dell laptop I use and the Apple desktop are in the middle in the rankings, but that really doesn’t make me feel any better. I hate my Dell, but I love my Xbox. What is an ecoist-nerd to do?

Let’s first look at Motorola. Here is the Greenpeace summary of the company’s efforts.

Motorola drops to 15th place, scoring 3.7 points, losing points because although its models of chargers are certified as Energy Star compliant in March 2007 – this is not since the latest energy efficiency standard for chargers (v.1.1) came into effect, which was in January 2005; it therefore scores no points on this criterion. In the U.S, all Motorola’s mobile phone chargers exceed ENERGY STAR Tier 2 requirements by more than 50 percent in sleep and standby/no-load modes – but what about chargers sold outside the US? On the other energy criteria Motorola scores relatively well for disclosing greenhouse gas emissions, committing to cuts and reporting a 5.4% renewable energy use (as proportion of all electricity purchased) in 2007. Motorola scores better on the chemicals and e-waste criteria. The company has launched 55 models of mobile phone with BFR free circuit boards. However, Motorola is the only mobile phone brand to still fail to commit to eliminating all BFRs and PVC with a timeline, in all of its products. On waste issues, Motorola provides a take-back and recycling service in 73 countries, representing over 90% of global mobile phone unit sales. It reports a global take-back rate of 3% of total handsets sold in 2005.

I do have to wonder how the “take-back” percentage is figured out. Is it just what Motorola itself takes back or any of the phone recyclers? I know that when I switched over to Credo Mobile, I was sent an envelope to recycle my old phone. Let’s say that is also a Motorola, but if I am sending it to a third-party recycler, would that phone be counted by Motorola in it’s “take-back” numbers?

Now, Microsoft.

Microsoft is in 17th position with a miserable score of 2.2 points, mainly on toxic chemicals criteria. The company provides a timeline of the end of 2010 for eliminating phthalates. On e-waste, Microsoft scores only on its weak support for Individual Producer Responsibility. On energy, the company only scores for reporting its total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, from its own operations and although it now has a Climate Change Policy it makes no reference to specific reduction targets for greenhouse gases.

Perhaps Microsoft has been spending too much of its efforts in its lame ad campaigns, instead of making the company more environmentally responsible? The Seinfeld ad was just stupid, and watching Bill Gates “adjust” himself was just disturbing.

Good thing I have put off buying that Wii. Check out Nintendo’s scoring.

Nintendo remains in last place with a pitiful 0.8 points out of 10, scoring zero on all e-waste criteria. The company has banned phthalates and is monitoring use of antimony and beryllium and although it is endeavouring to eliminate the use of PVC, it has not set a timeline for its phase out. Nintendo discloses carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from its own operations and commits to cutting CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases by 2% over each previous year. However, Nintendo admits that an increase in business led to a 6% rise in CO2 emissions in 2006.

If you would like to explore the Guide to Greener Electronics yourself, you can visit the Greenpeace website here.

This guide and many like it underscore the problems with the end-life issues with the electronics that we all have and love. I will discuss more about the problem with e-waste in the next few days.

Greenpeace, Guide to Greener Electronics, Motorola, Nokia, Microsoft, Dell, Apple, Wii, Nintendo, Xbox, Xbox 360, e-waste, toxic substances, recycling, environmentally responsible computing, cell phone recycling, take-back

Wow, try saying that one three times fast…

I ran across this little story in one of last month’s Newsweek magazines. My not-so-green secret is that I get a lot of magazines in the mail. I do recycle them, but with printing, shipping and the paper stock involved, it is still a bit of a waste, I admit. But then again, I would be using electricity to read magazines online, so either way I am screwed. And I only get magazines so I have something to read on the bus, which is better than driving my car…

But I disgress.

Anyhoo, this article in the August 2, 2008 Newsweek featured news on pollen and pollen-producing trees and plants, like ragweed — the bane of many an allergy sufferer, myself included. It seems that just one more depressing effect of global warming is that plants and trees will produce more pollen in a warmer world. Not only that but with the spring warm-up coming sooner and sooner every year, trees are pumping out pollen earlier and the allergy season is thus extended by cutting into what we used to call winter.

Here are some selected quotes:

Global warming and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels appear to supercharge the growth of ragweed. And not only does ragweed grow larger and produce more pollen, its pollen is more allergenic, studies show.

Oh, great. Super-pollen. I cannot wait to experience that.

To test his ragweed hypothesis, [Lewis] Ziska [a weed ecologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Crop Systems and Global Change Laboratory] planted the weed in three plots: a rural farm, a semi-rural county park and downtown Baltimore. The urban plot’s ragweed produced four times the pollen count of the rural site. “Cities already have more carbon dioxide than rural areas and are hotter,” Ziska says. “Cities are a surrogate for global warming.”

Maybe that is why I supposedly “grew into” bad allergies. I lived out in the country during most of my childhood.

Allergists are also worried. One new concern: a startling rise in the amount of tree pollen. Warmer temperatures in Europe are causing birch trees to bloom earlier, prompting an earlier and perhaps longer allergy season. Studies at Duke University show that elevated carbon dioxide increases pollen production of loblolly pines. Allergists suspect that record pollen counts are contributing to the onslaught of new allergy and asthma patients. “I’m seeing an epidemic of new cases,” says New York City allergist Clifford Bassett.

So much for being a tree-hugger, right?

If plant biomass increases due to elevated CO2 and global warming, fungi may proliferate as well, they suspect. Fungal spores are problematic because they affect air quality indoors as well as out. Higher temperatures will lead to increased use of air conditioners, which spread spores if improperly maintained. Heavier rainstorms and floods predicted under climate-change scenarios will also increase indoor dampness, allowing fungal spores to proliferate in homes and buildings, according to the 2007 study “Climate Change, Aerobiology, and Public Health in the Northeast United States.”

So, mushrooms will become the new enemy? I wonder when the Republicans will start exploiting that fear…

The article also mentions that us city-dwellers suffer the double whammy of increased smog due to ground level ozone — couple that with more powerful and just more pollen, and yeah, maybe it is time to look for a pleasant little cottage out in the country. Also, poison ivy was discovered to produce more potent poison when hit with increased levels of CO2. And finally, if I haven’t freaked you out enough, warmer temperatures usually result in more insects, such as stinging insects, like yellow jackets. In many places, like Alaska, rising temperatures are bringing in new insect populations. Reports of severe stings from yellow jackets and their equally-stinging cousins have increased 600 per cent since 2000 up in the 49th state.

All the more reason to try and mitigate this whole global warming issue. Unfortunately, no one seems to be all that concerned about it in the US Government. Maybe we should change the government…

Newsweek, allergy, allergies, asthma, pollen, pollen counts, global warming, CO2, yellow jackets, allergic reactions, Alaska, rural, urban, smog, ozone