Everywhere you look these days you see someone going “green”. Car makers are developing solar powered cars, people are practicing water conservation and recycling services are common place in many states. Everyone seems eager to do their part. But it is true that some cities are moving faster than others and there are areas where recycling is still not offered and people everywhere who haven’t even thought about it. But the cities and peoples who have gone above and beyond in “going green” deserve some recognition.

In my search online to discover which cities rate highest, I saw that everyone from Treehugger to MSN, from Mother Nature Network to Move have done a rating of their own, based on available data. What I did was obtain data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Green Building Council and the National Geographic Society’s “Green Guide” to compile my own. These findings are varied in some ways but overall pretty consistant. You will see each of these cities somewhere on everyone’s list. My list is based on everyone’s research of each cities’ resource conservation, waste emissions, public transportation use, recycling habits, number of eco friendly buildings and overall green space offered to determine which one goes where on the scale of 1 to 10. However, you could not go wrong by moving to any one of these lovely places, as they are definitely way ahead of the rest of us.

1. Portland, Oregon.

Portland is famous for being the first city in the US to adopt a Global Warming Action Plan. This plan has helped the city keep CO2 emissions low and helped Portland GE to become one of the greenest power companies in the country. For those who wish to move there, bennies include a comprehensive light rail system, buses and plentiful bike lanes to help those who want to travel without a car. The green space is also abundant. 92,000 acres, according to all sources, and more than 74 miles of hiking, running and biking trails and pathways. Although a lot of cities are trying to go this route and some (like mine) have always been walking and biking friendly, Portland leads them all and is a haven for the outdoorsman. Nature calls so get packing!

2. San Francisco, California.

Ok, so this is not a surprise. At least, not to me. This city has had a hugely popular transpo system for years, the Bay Area Rapid Transit or BART. This handy service has significantly cut back on the area’s need for cars. When I think of San Fran, I think of trollies and street cars and sunny sidewalks packed with walkers and joggers. Thanks to the gorgeous weather, biking is enjoyed by almost 17% of the locals. The Governor, Gavin Newsom, has lead the city in this direction with fervor. San Fransisco recently became the first city in the country to ban the use of petroleum-based plastic shopping bags in grocery stores! This is a great momentum and I am looking forward to this happening here, as well. San Fransisco leads in other ways, too. The Mayor of the city is cracking down on single-serving plastic water bottles as well.

3. Boston, Massachusetts.

Bostons’ Airport is the first terminal to be certified by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. This system, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, is the national benchmark for design, construction, and operation of high-performance green buildings. The fact that an airport as busy as this one has reached this level is amazing. Buildings can receive one of four levels of certification–certified, silver, gold, or platinum–based on how they score in six areas, including water efficiency, use of materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. Boston law now requires that all new buildings larger than 50,000 square feet to earn at least a silver rating under the LEED program.

4. Berkeley, California.

This is another city that doesn’t surprise me. From way back, to the 1960’s I mean, this city has been in the lead on many progressive issues. Today, Berkeley has one of the highest rates of pedestrian and bike commuting, and there are special biking boulevards all over the place. The University of California at Berkeley recently received a grant that will help the school develop new and improved energy sources, a major project that has widespread support. Let’s hope they are wildly successful and all of us will benefit in the future.

5. Seattle, Washington.

Another forward thinking city that doesn’t surprise me. As far back as 2005, Mayor Greg Nickels helped form the Seattle Climate Partnership, a voluntary pact among Seattle-area employers to reduce their own emissions and to work together to help meet a community-wide goal. This city was actually one of the first to establish such a goal. The pact includes 12 local businesses, including big companies like Starbucks. Seattle is also notable for it’s energy utility company, City Light, which was the first utility in the country to attain ZERO net emissions.

6. Chicago, Illinois.

Now, this one surprised me. What I remember of Chicago was crowded, sooty and a bit dirty, to be honest. But nowadays, the city purchases renewable energy and has aggressive policies in place to promote green building and to recycle construction waste. The homeboys are getting environmentally minded, as well, with nearly 80% taking part in curbside recycling. That is much better than the national average and a lot better than what I see in my own neighborhood. Also in full effect is the Bike 2015 Plan, which aims to have 5% of all short trips to be traveled by bike. This, I know, demands a lifestyle change on the part of citizens and this is why it has a 2015 target date. Plenty of time to get that bike and learn to ride it! Chicago also has a great tax program that we need more of in my own area: incentives for residents who will buy historic homes and update them with energy efficient technologies.

7. New York City.

Again, this did not surprise me. New York, as I remember it, was a lot like Chicago, crowded, dirty and sooty. But in recent years, New York has been making every effort to enter the new millennium with forward thinking initiatives. Did you know that more than 20% of New Yorkers commute in the city by bicycle or on foot? This city is actually made for this, if you take a look at the way it’s designed so, yes, it is easier for them than it is for places that are stuck with enormous swaths of urban sprawl. But it’s still an accomplishment. In addition, the Hearst Tower and 7 World Trade Center, both completed in 2006, are gold-level LEED buildings, boasting features such as rainwater collection, natural lighting, and recycled steel. This sets a precedent for all future construction within the city and heralds a new green future for us all.

8. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Here we go again. Another city that I found grungy when I visited it. My cousins lived there and it was grim, in my opinion. But today, Philly is changing. A new initiative, called “GreenPlan Philadelphia” aims to provide a long-term, sustainable roadmap for using, acquiring, developing, funding, and managing open space in the city’s neighborhoods. This is going to be a feat but I believe the city is motivated. There is also the Philadelphia’s Energy Cooperative, an independent power supplier that sources electricity off the roofs of residents who own solar electric systems. And there are lots of people in this city going to solar power! The numbers are much better than they are here in Florida. And for those wanting to generate their own, city and federal tax incentives will pay for up to 60% of solar-powered hot water systems! Good deal.

9. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

This city is on the forefront of green energy initiatives and it works well for them because they are surrounded by nature. The state has set one of the first state renewable energy standards, which requires that 25% of electricity come from renewable resources. This is ambitious but commendable. Minneapolis also has started its’ own light rail line, which heavily exceeded expected ridership in its first year. We are still fighting for ours here. What’s more, as I already noted, nature abounds in Minneapolis, with more than 15% of the city’s land devoted to parks and preserves, plus thousands of nearby lakes. This is a nature lovers paradise!

10. Austin, Texas.

I cannot help but be surprised to see a Texas city on this list. I hate to be assumptive, but Texas IS the oil state and I am sure most Texans would like to see us drill into the next century. But Austin has developed a neat community program, called “Keep Austin Beautiful”, which is aimed at decreasing litter, reducing waste, and conserving resources. As well, this program has really caught on with the public. In an effort to make use of the strong sunlight in their area, Austin is working hard to make both residential and commercial building codes the most energy-efficient in the nation. Presumably, they are trying to go solar.

So, there you have it, the list of the “greenest” cities in the country right now. This list could change at any time and hopefully will over time as more cities make a real effort. Even in rural areas there is energy use, emissions, landfills and gas consumption and just because there are a lot of trees and animals does not excuse them from doing something to “go green”. So if you’re tired of the smog, the filth and the landfills in your area, consider packing up and moving to these cities. I hear the northwest and midwest are doing better than the rest of the country in this recession, as well. So maybe you’ll get a job when you get there!

Technorati Tags: climate change, conservation, electricity, emissions, energy, global warming, government, green initiatives, pollution reduction, regulations, sustainable alternatives

Perhaps you have heard about these and how they are a part of the solution to global warming. And perhaps you have also heard that Desert Hills Dairy Biodigester has begun plans and acquired land to construct the very first biodigester in the State of Nevada at Desert Hills Dairy in Wabuska, near Yerington, Nevada. But what the heck is it? And how can it help?

Biodigesters capture methane from dairy cattle to generate clean electrical energy! I know this sounds amazing but the problem created by cattle poop on meat and dairy farms is outrageous and dangerous and must be mitigated. You are aware, I am sure, that cattle poop is sold as manure for gardening and makes a wonderful fertilizer. Now, take the step mentally, from the energy and heat created by fertilizer to the energy required to make electricity. It’s really that simple.

The methane captured by the biodigester is enough to create a highly nutritious and non toxic liquid fertilizer, a high quality mulch by product that generates enough power to run both the digester and the dairy. This mitigates an enormous amount of the methane generated on the dairy and takes that much CO2 out of the atmosphere. Now, if we can just get them running on every farm and cattle ranch in the country.

According to the CEO of DHDB, Dr. Micheal Ganz, “Desert Hills is the largest and best managed dairy in Northern Nevada. We will use proven digester technology developed by GHD, Inc. in Wisconsin to obtain maximum yields from this installation.” Quote obtained online from Reuters.

Studies have proven that the methan produced from dairy cattle, in particular, has a greenhouse warming effect 21 times carbon dioxide. It has been established that a herd of 10,000 cows can produce as much as a billion cubic feet of methane annually. This information comes from studies performed at the University of Texas and from statistics compiled by the Midwest Rural Energy Council.

“At a time when the Nevada dairy industry has been severely damaged by the recession, income from a biodigester can make the difference between economic profitability and failure,” Dr. Ganz added, according to Reuters.

This is all well and good and I am very pleased with the ingenuity and effort that went into this device. American business will find a way as long as there is money and good will in it. However, if the climate bill gets passed as it is right now, this won’t make much difference. They’ll end up using the offsets from the diary farms to mitigate carbon creation at other locations, including China and India. As good as the biodigester is and I give kudos to those folk that invented it and are trying to use it, it will have nada impact on this mess if we don’t make everybody use it and not allow trade offs. Keep the pressure on. Write your congressman or woman and let them know how you feel.

Note: DHDB (Desert Hills Dairy Biodigester) is a subsidiary of Carbon Bank Ireland, LLC.

Technorati Tags: carbon, cattle, dairy farms, electricity, energy, farming, global warming, manure, renewables, sustainable, waste

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama ordered our Government to lead by example on climate change matters, to cut consumption of fuel and improve water use efficiency. I think this is a first, however, those of you who know otherwise are welcome to comment and give examples. But I think this is a much needed push on the part of our President in bringing conservation back into the mindset of America. We call ourselves conservatives and then we consume and trash like drunken sailors. It’s time to walk the walk.

In his demand, he wanted federal departments to cut their fuel consumption by 30% and to improve their water use efficiency by 26%. This appears to be an immediate goal with a 90 day limit for the development of an overall plan for long term targets. In fact, he requires all federal agencies to set firm 2020 targets to cut their greenhouse gas emissions within that 90 day window. As much as you hear the pigs squealing, this is very liberal and tolerant and allows them to squirm off with their usual wheeling and dealing and I am not sure it will make a whit of difference. It seems all that many Americans care about is who is sleeping with whom but damn if they care if the baby goes out with the bathwater. I apologize but a lot of people piss me off. Barack Obama pisses me off. The time has long passed for people to wake up and smell the coffee and still they keep dreaming. Who out there smells it? The world is on fire, fools.

I have tried to keep the seed neutral and not get too carried away with my personal opinions but this whole mess with the climate bill fiasco and the echo chamber I keep hearing from the opposition has just gotten me so darned mad. I cannot help but toss in a few snarks here and there. In his much publicized demands, Obama also told agencies to increase energy efficiency, cut gasoline consumption by official vehicles and to save water and reduce waste, important moves which he said would save money and help clean up the environment. The key element of this, even for those of you who think climate change is hooey, is the word “save money”. All you so called “conservatives” need to get your head out of other people’s smut and pay attention to what’s disappearing around us. You think the things you need will be here the entire time you’re alive, and then it doesn’t matter? Well, the butterflies didn’t and it looks like the bees won’t make it either, so, hey, I hope you don’t have a thing for honey or flowers. Might make things uncomfortable in a few years.

Ok, so let’s say you don’t give a shit about butterflies or bees and you think that they’ll start cloning cows so you can eat all the meat you can shove down your double chin until you die of your heart attack. What will you do when you can’t afford to buy that cow, cloned or not? What if the only people getting fat are the Chinese and the French? Will you be happy watching corporate executives and politicians wear dead foxes and drive gas guzzling Hummers while you watch it all out of the dirty window in the local homeless shelter? Will that make you feel good about using and abusing, all in fun? Who do you think wins in this sort of game?

Ok, I realize I got way off track with my rant and should be talking about the President’s orders but none of it ever seems good enough to me and I just get sick about it. To his credit, the president earlier signed an executive order containing the new standards to be adopted as part of the administration’s wider attempt to build a clean energy economy. Under the new rules, agencies must meet a string of targets for energy efficiency and waste reduction. In fact, it states that, by 2020, federal departments must cut the consumption of fuel by their official fleets by 30 percent and show a 26 percent improvement in water use efficiency. And then, it advances further to say that, by 2015, agencies must recycle 50 percent of waste, or divert it away from landfill projects. This is all in the executive order. It may be small bananas but at least it’s some bananas, after all. And, to top it off with some fudge sauce, the order also states that all US government buildings will have to meet new emissions and sustainability standards during the same time frame. This is sweet but it won’t replace the honey when the bees are totally dead.

To his credit, Obama has argued that cutting greenhouse gas emissions & building a sustainable green economy is vital not just to the planet, but to the economy. I have done my own research on these types of projects (and, no, not just reading pulp the administration dishes out, but actually crunching some numbers I got from the industries) and I think he’s right. He did include many incentives for governments and private firms to build a green economy right in that big fat stimulus bill that essentially has most of us groaning. I am not a fan of big spending or big government; in fact, most of my life I have been a Libertarian… but lately, this whole thing is too huge to let lie. Government has to fix it. They are the reason this mess happened and it can’t be fixed any other way. The idea that the miserable slaves common in the American workforce are going to work magic and come up with great new ideas that will save everybody is nutso. Not without bank financing. Not without money. No way. And the only place we can all get money, for sure, no matter what, is the Fed. Get the money presses running!

Back to the subject of conservation, at least this administration and Obama, himself, have reversed the previous skepticism on climate change shown by the administration of George W. Bush and has vowed to push for a global climate deal at major UN talks in Denmark later this December. However, it is acknowledged that he still faces major domestic political constraints, not least of all the fears that tackling climate change will hinder economic recovery. How that can be is a puzzle to me but a bunch of folk don’t have imagination and believe that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Right now, though, folks, there ain’t one in the hand so get over it.

You can make a difference in this issue, one way or the other, by letting our President know how you feel. Do so by submitting a comment HERE today. He knows how I feel, make sure he hears you, too.

Technorati Tags: carbon, climate change, eco, energy, environment, emissions, government, pollution, regulations, saving

The big news on the climate front is the bill released by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) last month. It is disappointing to many environmentalists and activists but they are now saying it may be as ambitious as we can hope for given the fossil fuel industry’s stranglehold on Congress. I am really not happy with it because it just won’t make a significant impact on our increasingly unstable climate. I consider that a disaster.

I guess this bill is a bit better, though, than the 1427 pages of garbage that Waxman and Markey pushed through the House in June. This is known as the American Clean Air and Security Act and both Waxman and Markey are Democrats. It was a complex bill that was hard to read and understand but it essentially had the fingerprints of agribusiness and oil industry lobbyists all over it. This bill by Kerry and Box is a leaner, cleaner bill with a few less fingerprints but it still doesn’t get past environmentalists and climate scientists who actually care.

There are some good milestones that I must mention, though. They moved up the measely 17% cut in emissions proposed by the Waxman bill and ask for larger cut of 20% by the year 2020. Although I am sure they are thrilled with their own moxy and obvious concern for the problem, but when they start with a year 2005 baseline, which is utterly ridiculous. 2005 was just as nasty an emissions year as any other before or since and isn’t an accurate measurement of where we could be. Why not use 1990 or 1985 or some other, less polluted, year? I would like it if they used 1950 but I know they just won’t do that. The rest of the world is using the year 1990 as their conservative baseline, so that at least we are setting a real goal and not just fooling around.

What we really need, according to leading climate scientists, are “reductions in rich countries of approximately 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid climate catastrophe”. This supposedly heroic bill by Boxer and Kerry just gets us to 7% below 1990 by 2020… not even 30% overall. This is measly and pathetic. 1990 is a fair concession on the part of climate activists and scientists, although there was enough crap in the air in 1990 to melt us down over the long haul anyways! Why can’t we aim to clean it up good for good?

Do you realize that the Waxman Markey bill stripped the EPA of it’s authority to regulate large polluters and basically denigrated the Clean Air Act? These men actually felt comfortable putting up a bill that basically served up our climate to Wall Street for short term profit. And at what cost? Long term damage to the future of this planet, the planet we expect our children to populate! It amazes me time and again the coldness and selfishness of some people; it’s as if the mere belief that they “will not be here for the end result” is an excuse for not giving a shit. As a person of faith, of heart and of compassion, I find this beyond understanding.

Fortunately, the Boxer Kerry bill restores that authority to the EPA and allows them enforce the Clean Air Act. The one weak knee in this deal is Kerry (always a weak sister) has since proposed that they could remove this authority if big Coal and other monstrous polluters were to come to a bargaining table. So how much money will it take for the weak chins in congress to buckle under and turn the other cheek? They disgust me.

There are other shameful dark corners in the bill, as well. Like Waxman and Markey, Kerry and Boxer are allowing polluters to buy their way out of reducing an outlandish 2 billion tons per year of their carbon dioxide emissions with the stupid, money grabbing and wheeler dealer concept of carbon offsets. This, in my opinion, turns out climate into a poker game. Whoever bluffs the best or has the Ace gets the chips, the planet be damned! Again, I’m disgusted.

Do you realize that the GAO has found that carbon offsets are “impossible” to verify? I mean, if you have half a brain this should be outright obvious. I’m no genius and I figured that out right away. “Carbon Offsets” are the ghosts in the machine; no one sees them, no one knows what or where they really are! Incidentally, the GAO challenges whether offsets would be able to achieve the critical goal of cost-containment. This whole idea could blow our economy into outer space. You think you’re going hungry now? Just wait.

The number of carbon offsets proposed is effectively equivalent to 30% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. 30%. I am sure that this will make a big difference, huh? We will all be choking on only one third of the cancer causing garbage they are spewing now and I’m sure we’ll all enjoy the big difference. In addition, if all of these offsets were used, U.S. polluters would not achieve verifiable emissions reductions until 2030. This is a far cry from 2020 and, in my personal opinion, is just way too late. I hope they enjoy the gold rush while it lasts. There isn’t going to be a lot of good stuff left to spend it on.

As good as the Democrats pretend to be in these matters, giving lip service to climate matters and pretending to give credence to the cause, they sure get into ladling on the gravy and suet for the oil and coal industries. To their credit, the original Waxman-Markey bill would require emissions from landfills, coal mines, and natural gas pipelines to be phased out under a regulatory regime, assuming we could empower some agency to regulate and actually fund it. But, to their shame, the Democratics in the Kerry-Boxer draft lets these industries voluntarily capture methane in exchange for offset payments. Again, more money and no cuts in the crap.

The thing that really gets my goat is the signals we send to the rest of the world. Developing countries everywhere hold America up as a model; they all want to be like us! Are they going to expect such considerations to be extended to them? I mean, will they be hanging around with their hands out and the flaring going on in the background? This image is highly realistic when you consider that we already have plans in this regard in the works. Oil companies operating in third world countries are already salivating over the amount of money they can now extort from a global carbon offset regime in exchange for finally “obeying the law”. And here’s the real kicker: if Nigeria, for instance, stops flaring gas and gets paid to do so, even just temporarily, then the big oil company in Houston, Texas can just carry on. Does this sound workable to you? Does it sound effective? Or is just another opportunity for the corporate theives and crooked congress to steal more money?

In reality, we the taxpayers, do not have enough money to pay off every oil company, pig farmer, corn grower, coalminer, waste dump or landfill cash to “do the right thing”! If this bill passes, then money will start flying right out of your wallet and you will never see it happen. They better get cracking and find all of us some decent work or there aren’t going to be taxes to pay these crooks for their pollution… an oxymoron that just has me in fits. So we are not only going to go broke, we are not even going to have decent resources to explore. Basic survival seems to be in question at this point in our history and it scares me.

This whole climate bill bonanza is another farce. This is nothing but a feeding frenzy of polluters and derivatives traders at the trough of a “solution” that even the staid U.S. government says may mean money down the drain and no guarantee of emissions reductions. So who is running this ship? Who is at the helm? I believe it’s the money eating corporations and big business who actually run our country.. these bills seem to affirm that. And there is really nothing left for us to do except revolt. It may be time for a new revolution in this country; I know progressives are primed for it. How about you? Do you want to do something or just let the monsters eat your meal? Leave ideas in the comments. Activists are invited to leave links.

In Florida, 12 waste-to-energy facilities from Miami to Panama City process nearly 20,000 tons of municipal solid waste each day while continuously producing over 500 megawatts of clean, renewable power. This amount of waste is enough to fill a football stadium, imagine that! The Tampa Bay area is home to four waste-to-energy facilities, located in the City of Tampa and in the counties of Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco. Without these facilities, local governments would be faced with the daunting task of siting large landfills near rapidly growing residential communities. The issue of this development is another problem to be addressed in a different forum but there is no doubt that this landfill to energy idea is a good one.

I first heard about this idea several years ago when a small county northwest of where I reside started pumping landfill gas through pipes and converting it to energy. In fact, I later heard a follow up that claimed the entire city was running on this power alone. Amazing. Not only is this greenie meanie but it’s cheap, too. These waste-to-energy projects eliminate 90% of the waste that might have ended up in a landfill. But it isn’t nearly enough, as you can imagine, because landfills throughout the state are reaching capacity faster than anticipated. It is becoming increasingly difficult to expand landfills or open new ones as residential development encroaches on once-remote landfill sites. People are already living in homes where they can smell garbage 24/7 in various lower income areas around the state. Florida’s current population of over 17 million is expected to reach almost 23 million by the year 2020, bringing even more challenges to managing municipal solid waste.

Because of the high population numbers and the lack of remaining land space, this waste to energy concept is a good one for Florida. Beleive it or not, hydropower and windpower have proven to be a bust in the sunshine state because coastal winds are never steady but come and go in big bursts followed by long periods of utter stillness. Hydropower is being used in nuclear energy facilities already but I suspect the moneymakers see the use of water as energy to be a loss here, especially in the face of water shortages. They are too busy signing over leases to companies like Aquafina who suck out the aquifer at an astounding rate while we are being told not to water the lawn. This is unfortunate but true. And solar power, as sunshine-y as we are, is way too expensive an upgrade to add to rental homes, timeshares and winter condos, which is what most of the population resides in. So the landfill becomes the cheapest and wisest prospect for all concerned.

It is in the spirit of this development, that Global Energy Systems has signed an agreement with Charlotte County, Florida for the development of a landfill gas sequestration and energy facility at the Charlotte County Zemel Road landfill. This landfill, like all landfills, generates methane, a natural gas, created from the decomposition of its waste. Methane is a dangerous greenhouse gas that is actually 23 times more potent that carbon dioxide. Typically, as a control, this methane gas is flared to keep it from escaping into the atmosphere. This is why you hear about landfills being “burned”. In this new technology, landfill gas sequestration (which is a fancy word for “trapping”), Global Energy will construct and operate a landfill gas collection system and onsite energy plant for local electricity production. As I said earlier, something similar to this was first instituted by a small city northwest of me.

Global Energy Systems has purchased all the rights for the landfill gas generated at the Charlotte County, Florida Zemel Road landfill and has the exclusive right to construct and operate a landfill gas to electricity project at that location. Global Energy Systems expects to make a $6,000,000 investment at the landfill for infrastructure and power generation equipment. And this big price tag is exactly why this sort of thing takes big business to get involved, however distasteful that may be to most environmentalists and activists.

According to Charlie Wall, the COO at Global Energy, “The landfill will provide enough gas to generate enough electricity to power 1,500 homes in Charlotte County every year. This proactive approach to carbon dioxide emissions reductions has the equivalent benefit of removing 17,000 vehicles from our roadways.” Now, that is pretty amazing and looks promising to me. Another good thing is that, based on its greenhouse gas emissions, the Zemel Road landfill has not reached a critical level and, therefore, does not require mandatory gas collection. That critical level was established by the EPA “New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), which limits the level of pollution that a single, stationary source may produce.

As well, it is said by a project manager at Charlotte County, that the project will generate as much as 1 million dollars in annual revenues for the county. In this economy, I am sure the county managers there are drooling. And so they should be. This is a win win situation for all concerned and is an idea that should be taken on by most cities, both large and small, across the country.

Technorati Tags: carbon, conservation, eco, electricity, emissions, energy, environment, gas, government, green, landfill, pollution, power, renewable, sustainable, waste

I can recall the economists, bureaucrats and investors rejoicing loudly and proudly when the Commerce Department announced that U.S. exports were rising overall, as much as $28.8 billion higher than the year before. But what the department made less noise about and even failed to mention in many instances, was the rising tide of imports, which were up as much or more, around $26.4 billion between the year 2007 and 2008.

I also read an article explaining that the nation’s seaports, airports, railways and highways were still faced with moving an additional $40 billion worth of stuff in and out across our borders, on top of the $330 billion worth of stuff that’s already going in and out each month. These figures omit the increases in the import cost that comes from rising oil prices, which is a huge factor.

But imports of consumer and industrial goods continue to dominate over exports in our trade balance. This is what is called a “trade deficit”. We make and export far less than we import and consume and this has had a huge impact on our economy and current inability to pull ourselves out of the recession. And the need for imports just keeps rising as our capacity to manufacture those items keeps disappearing. The hauling, sorting and delivering of all these foreign-made goods has evolved into a fast-growing, high-tech, high-profit industry. On that end, those that profit from this business are hard pressed to slow it down or correct the imbalance and this is also a huge part of our current picture.

Our local Port Authority here on the space coast in Florida releases data on a regular basis about the volumes of imports that cross our water borders. They are saying that the port and all ports are now handling about 1 1/2 billion tons of goods every year and that they expect waterborne container traffic to double by 2020. And, as you know, if you are a shopper in the big box stores, as we all are, most of these little imported goodies come from Asia, in particular Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea and China.

Most of these imports enter the United States through the twin seaports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Together, they comprise the third-largest container-handling facility in the world, receiving 40 percent of all imports entering the country. Traffic through the two ports is expected to triple within 15 years. These are amazing numbers and if you use your head when you think about it you can clearly see how our self indulgent habits have driven the wealth ratio of countries around the world. Countries where citizens buy very little and live spartan lives. Many of these goods are made by slaves, children who work for food and shelter.

But getting back to my subject, the impact of these imports on the environment is horrific. At the places where these ships, trains and trucks converge, the air is so polluted you could cut it with a knife. Consider also that cargo ships use the lowest of low-quality diesel oil, and the fuel used by freight trains isn’t much better. Trucks burn a greater quantity of fuel per ton hauled, with correspondingly high emissions. All of this adds up to a huge carbon footprint brought about by our driving demand for new toys and our inability to just make our own.

Figures determined by the Los Angeles and Long Beach authorities show that the movement of cargo through their ports was responsible for 6,000 tons of particle matter in 2005. This matter includes soot, smoke, dust, organic matter and other microscopic flecks that can invade deep into the lungs and is a known cause of cancer. These figures also show more than 46,000 tons of nitrogen and sulfur oxides. These are chemicals that can cause slow suffocation and brain hypoxia if exposure is great enough.

According to studies, emissions from oceangoing vessels caused 60,000 premature deaths in 2002. With increasing trade, the number of such deaths is projected to rise 40 percent by 2012. Ships’ crews, dock workers, truckers, other port personnel and local residents are all vulnerable. It is a known fact that particulate matter produced by burning diesel oil has been associated with lung cancer, asthma, chronic bronchitis, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, decreased lung function in children and infant mortality.

If this doesn’t concern you, then consider this. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), a relatively small community of 50,000 people living on the fringes of the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports suffers 25 new cases of cancer each year because of diesel pollution from ships, trucks and dock equipment. These are current figures. Similar cancer risks were found for people living near railroads and rail yards. According to the same agency, people living within a several mile radius around sea ports are dieing from exposure to air pollutants to the tune of 75 new cases a year! I live right on the skirts of a port in my community, a port with a large foreign trade center and a big number of ships. It is very unnerving to read numbers like this and realize, with trepidation, that nothing is being done except more orders are being placed for new toys from the Orient.

In 2008, an all time record was set with imports topping $2 trillion dollars for the first time. This does not include oil imports, which amounted to about another $2 trillion, also a record. I am not so sure about this moment in 2009, as the numbers have not been totaled yet but it is my bet that even with our tight wallets we still make every effort to purchase the goodies we want so much. Imported goods account for more of these desired items.

During the process, merchandise never sits in one place for long. It is moved out of the ports, sorted at sophisticated warehouse complexes known as “logistics facilities,” and distributed throughout the country as quickly as possible. In recent years California has seen construction of these special warehouses covering as much or more than 330 million square feet. To get a mental picture of this massive undertaking, imagine 7300 football fields paved and enclosed in concrete. This is an enormous development that underscores the true magnitude of our consumption of imported goods and remember that all this warehousing and trucking triples and quadriples the amount of traffic moving in any given area. This requires the removal of natural landscapes in favor of concrete and brick and the amount of emissions it creates is staggering.

Consider any product moving from an Asian sweatshop to the shelves in Walmart. I hate to pick on Walmart, they are not the only purveyor of imported goods, they are just the most visible. This product is destined to sell for $10, let’s say. By the time this item arrives at Walmart, it has traveled many thousands of miles on diesel burning cargo ships and required a dozen concrete warehouses along the way, not to mention the trees that are taken down to develop packaging. It also spends many days and miles on trucks, which also burn diesel at a high rate. And the warehouses where it is stored often require air conditioning and stevedoring, more energy consumption. This is a scary trail of carbon that eventually will smother every port and port side neighborhood along the polluted path. It will also drain the gas pumps we all rely on so much.

Take this one step further and imagine that it sits on the shelf in the store, in it’s cardboard box, under air, waiting for the buyer. And then buyer drives around looking for it, using gas as he goes, buys it, takes it home, uses it for awhile and then, guess what? It’s tossed in the trash and ends up in the landfill, where they mostly remain today and for ever from here on.

With a rising tide of imports from China and other countries choking the ports and major highways of the country, the goods-transport system is looking for alternate routes. The traffic jams can cost a company big money because the longer the product sits in the truck, the longer it takes for you to buy it and for the company to get its money back for the cost of manufacture. So they are now using rail lines out of Mexico to move this stuff into the southwestern US. But what does this do for us, other than get the product out of the traffic jam? It extends the route from the sweatshop to store shelf thereby using more gas, staying in more warehouses, eating up more of our air. On the southeastern side of the country, the railways have been developing yet another intermodal hub, south of Kansas City. It has the potential for 23 million square feet of warehouse space on 970 acres of land. Aerable land, I assume.

In 2008, in response to this scenario, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach announced a “Clean Air Action Plan,” characterized as “the most comprehensive strategy to cut air pollution and reduce health risks ever produced for a global seaport complex.” The goal has been to reduce emissions of diesel pollutants by almost 50 percent in five years. The Port of Long Beach has since been calling itself the “Green Port” but I cannot find anything on their website where numbers are posted that make sense to the average reader. They have clearly outlined their plans and it has been over a year since the programs started but it’s hard to tell if they are working.

As part of the program, trucks entering either of two big Southern California ports have to comply with new rules on emissions and safety, and older trucks with poorer pollution controls are banned. On top of that, the Los Angeles port has decreed that only drivers who are employees of trucking firms, not independent contractors, will be allowed to enter the port. American Trucking Associations (ATA), which represents most of the nation’s trucking companies, has sued the port over this.

I read another article about this matter where it was stated that the lever the ATA is employing in its effort to overturn the Clean Air Action Plan is the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause, it is claimed, prohibits states and localities from interfering with interstate trade. Economist John Husing of Redlands, Calif., who has done analyses of the region’s goods-transport industry under contracts with the ports and the Southern California Association of Governments, believes that the industry’s constitutional argument will succeed. This is another sad day for environmentalists as the states are again held hostage by big biz and not allowed to create their own environments. There have been lawsuits going in every direction over this, from the trucking industry to the maritime groups, but nothing has yet been decided. The Clean Air Action Plan is still in place at this time. But, once again, there is no easy measure by which I can ascertain if it is actually working.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), with headquarters in Washington, D.C., and an office in Los Angeles, filed a “motion to intervene” in opposition to ATA’s lawsuit. Other groups, including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, have joined NRDC in supporting the new environmental regulations at the Southern California ports. NRDC is in favor of the Clean Air Action Plan, as you can imagine. Their spokesperson, Jessica Lass, has been quoted as saying, “We support the plan because more management oversight is needed at the ports, to improve efficiency. Trucks need to be fully loaded, to minimize the number of trips in and out. And we need to be sure they are fuel-efficient and well maintained.”

But if you think the problem of controlling trucks is a problem, wait until you see how hard it is going to be to regulate ships. 90% of the vessels coming into the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports are foreign-owned and -flagged. They are under foreign control and basically not under our law, so regulating them is nearly impossible. And waiting around for these foreign elements to consider our smog problem and carbon footprint is a waste of time. All any of these characters cares about is making money for themselves and their loved ones, the rest of the world be damned. There is nothing that I get more tired of hearing is the old adage, “I’ll be dead and gone”, referring to future calamities. The other one I despise is, “This is the way it’s always been done”. Enough.

In the naive hope that they will have some minor impact, the EPA has a voluntary program under which some ships will use better grades of fuel in their auxiliary engines (which they switch to when they’re in and around ports), reduce their speed near ports, and plug into shore-based power sources when at dock. NRDC hails the program as a step forward but I must say that I don’t hold out much hope for the EPA. If you read my blog, you know what I think of them.

Now, I know you are thinking, what does all this dismal news have to do with me? And what can little old me do about it? Well, you have to think about this. The sheer volume of imports, growing by the day, threatens to overwhelm all attempts to clean up the environment along trade routes, in landfills and even in your neighborhood. The value of goods being imported nationwide has risen 68 percent just in the past decade. That’s adjusted for inflation and doesn’t include oil.

If we could find a way to slow the growth of imports or even make deep cuts in what we are already importing, it would not only help clean the air it would also make it easier to clean up our gasping oceans, reduce the number of trees that are being harvested and reduce the horrid effects of noise pollution. In other words, lessening our purchase of imports would address those and a host of other environmental and human-rights problems created by overproduction and overconsumption. Think of the slaves they use just to make that blouse you’re wearing. But please don’t get me wrong, I am not blaming you. You did not make these theives go about raping the planet for money but you are complicit in it through your buying habits. Currently, the problem is escalating because , with an increasingly fragile economy that depends so heavily on consumer spending, politicians and economists continue to call for more trade, not less. They just keep hoping and praying that we will get busy with our credit cards again and save them from their own self indulgent disaster.

Remember our last economic slide, a few years back? Didn’t George Bush tell us to fix it by “going shopping”? Everybody should “go shopping” he said. Didn’t that strike you as odd? It did me. But it was a wake up call for me when I suddenly realized that the whole world was getting rich on the backs of American debt. We buy everything from the rest of the world and, at the same time, we owe them interest on the money we used to buy their imports. It’s a crazy, convoluted web of financial shenanigans and it’s ruining not only our lifestyles, it’s destroying the planet, too.

Our current administration does not offer solutions, either. Obama’s Government Web site says, “Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs.” In practice, he appears to vacillate between advocating mild trade regulations (for which critics repeatedly brand him as a “protectionist”) and flirting with “strong dollar” policies that would bring in even higher volumes of imports. There was one small glimmer of hope (or so it seemed) when he imposed tariffs on imported Chinese tires. However, I do not understand why it was only tires.. and why nothing has ever been done even as we’ve been poisoned by imports time and again. Here in Florida we are currently under siege with a catastrophe caused by imported Chinese drywall. People are losing their homes over this and, yet, I bet they do nothing to restrict it. That is why we cannot just expect the powers to be to fix this and get it right.

Interestingly enough, I noted an article online that pointed out some interesting theories. According to this writer, some of the flow through our ports seems almost circular. This means trade for the sake of trade. In some of the categories that the U.S. Census Bureau uses to tally trade, such as “pleasure boats and motors,” “toiletries and cosmetics” and “medicinal equipment,” the dollar values of goods coming in and going out are strikingly similar. So there is no real big profit for what is imported in these instances, it is simply being done because money is being made on the other end.

Now, considering all this madness and money hysteria, you must realize that all this activity, both inbound and outbound, creates a lot of pollution along with the money that is being sought. But because of the money they are making, no one on either side of the battle over pollution control around ports, roads and railways seems to be urging a rollback of imports. They are talking about everything else but never that. And now, with an economy just begging for jobs, no matter what kind, the expansion of imports and the need for packers, truckers, stevedores and shop managers creates these kinds of jobs. But the payoff is only half of what it could be. As long as we do not make these goods ourselves, then we lose out on the biggest part of the profits and when it comes down to cleaning this place up, that is going to cost us more than we can imagine in the long run. The money being made now may not be worth it after all.

Overall, environmentalists are focusing on pollution control, carbon counting, emission standards, laboring under the assumption that demand for imports cannot be stemmed. That is where you must come in. Yes, we need jobs, we need money and we need products. But we need to cut back on buying so many imports and focus more on homemade, grass roots business and products. When the big box stores drove mom and pop out of business they went into the cheap import business, buying from slave driven economies that we just can’t compete with. Our standard of living outpaces theirs and so our need for income is much higher. Only if we start buying here at home will we start making here at home again on a large enough scale to give us all worthwhile employment.

We need to also work on making our ports, highways and airports more environmentally friendly and sustainable. Cleaning up emissions is a part of it but not all. We have to get a grip on our “purchase driven” lifestyles and get a grip on how and what we buy. Unfortunately, this painful, miserable recession we are all wallowing in right now is a part of that process. You can speed it up by stopping your spending and when you do buy, be careful what you buy and where it comes from. A clean-running economy that can thrive on less production and less importation of consumer goods would look very different from today’s economy. It could be our future.. our shining future.. but it won’t be if we don’t take action.. and soon.

Technorati Tags: carbon, ecology, emissions, energy, environment, fuel, EPA, imports, oceans, pollution, regulations, renewables, rules, sustainable

As I’ve reported before in this blog, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as a rule, allows companies to keep new information about chemicals they use in their products a secret from the public. This includes compounds and additives that have been shown to cause cancer, respiratory problems and immune reactions. This boils down to a conspiracy of sorts, whereby the EPA and the companies they protect lie to the American people.

In a recent investigation, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newspaper examined more than 2,000 filings in the EPA’s registry of dangerous chemicals for the past three years. In more than half the cases, the EPA was shown to have agreed to keep the chemical name a secret. In hundreds of other cases, it allowed the company filing the report to keep its name and address confidential.

This is in despite of a federal law requiring public notice of any new information through the EPA’s program that is supposed to monitor chemicals that pose substantial risk. The whole idea of this enforced program is to warn the public of newfound dangers. So what they are doing is illegal and dangerous to all of us! Once again, money trumps concern over public safety. In fact, according to the regulations, the The EPA is supposed to allow confidentiality only “under very limited circumstances.”

What this amounts to is wide spread public exposure to dangerous chemicals that can maim, disable and kill. This has been shown endless times in the studies of popular chemicals at use for various industrial purposes. The idea behind the rules is that public safety should override the financial concerns of manufacturers and developers. In other words, just because it might extend shelf life or make a product pretty, they are not allowed to add Cyanide. Point made?

According to the environmentalists, this practice of blacking out information puts the public and the planet in grave danger. As well, legal experts are pointing out that this “sanitizing” of company secrets violates the agency’s own laws. Which tells me that their “laws” are simply smokescreens. They like to look good in the eyes of the public while they are secretly loading our Lemonade with poison.

According to the Journal Sentinal’s investigation, Section 14 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the foundation for all the EPA’s toxic and chemical regulations, stipulates that chemical producers may not be granted confidentiality when it comes to health and safety data. The newspaper’s findings are just the latest example of how the EPA consistently puts the interests of business ahead of the needs of the public. Over the past year or so, this newspaper has been reporting on various EPA programs that have bent over under corporate pressure. This not only frustrates environmentalists and safety advocates, it destroys the entire mission of the EPA, which was initially established to protect the public.

Because of their original mission, the EPA was granted the authority to fine companies that fail to fully disclose information about dangerous chemicals. Occasionally, it has done so. But critics say the program has been allowed to flounder, and the agency rarely challenges a company’s request for confidentiality.

In the agency’s defense, this was largely the fault of the previous administration. They basically starved the EPA for funding and made efforts to cripple it’s mission, in their overall effort to favor business over the public. The Bush Administration had an ideology that did not allow for restrictions or oversight on business, the results of which we see now all around us.

The EPA was created over 30 years ago to be a watchdog for dangerous chemicals. The law requires companies to that make chemicals to submit any information about potential hazards in their products to the EPA for consideration. And the EPA, as the watchdog it was created to be, was supposed to disseminate this information as a safeguard for the public, who could then choose not to purchase risky products. Of course, the public is sensitive to the issues and, as it has been proven time and again, will simply stop buying products they are afraid of. Witness the demise of many companies who were later revealed to maim or kill with their products.

This public outcry has led to corporate “sanitizing” of safety information to protect their industry from public rejection. They have figured out how to twist and turn the loopholes in the law in their favor and to our detriment. By law, companies can claim “confidentiality” if they fear that public disclosure will reveal trade secrets. They have to answer a short list of 14 questions, including specifics on why disclosing the information would harm the company. EPA administrators then decide which ones are granted confidentiality.

Confidentiality was not meant to hide the dangers of various products. This is just what the companies have managed to use it for. In their investigation, the Journal Sentinel found that large information gaps remain in the overall process. More than half of the 32 submissions for March 2004, for example, are still missing information necessary for the public to connect the name of the chemical with the information submitted. Clever.

Still, some have no information at all.

The newspaper gives examples. In one EPA report, posted by an unnamed company about an unnamed chemical, testing shows that if the substance is inhaled, it produces “foamy macrophages” or diseased cells, in the lungs of rats. The report also indicates the chemical may cause pulmonary fibrosis – a deadly and irreversible disease in people. But, according to the investigators, there is no way to know if this is a chemical coming out of a smokestack in some town or a concern for workers at a factory. The write-up does not say where the chemical is produced or used. Nor is there any indication in the description of what this chemical is or how it works.

This is only one small example but it duplicates over and over again. The newspaper gives a lot more examples than I will here. If you go to the link for the paper above you can search for the series of articles on this matter and investigate it more fully.

My concern is the mishandling of laws and regulations as it regards the environment and public health. The public is, once again, being denied critical information on chemicals in their purchases and environmental hazards that affect the world around them. It is downright evil, if you ask me. But then I’m a activist and I give a shit.

The real embarrassment for me is when I go to the EPA’s own Web site and read the garbage about how their studies, letters and accident reports are intended to be viewed by the public so citizens can “understand potential human health and environmental risks associated with exposure to chemical substances.” What a load. Yes, they post a bunch of reports on the site, so many in fact that few people have the time to read it all. But even if you did, if you could stomach all that crap, you would find that a great deal of it is redacted. So much for openness and honesty.

In their investigation, the Milwaukee Journal cornered a spokesman and asked him about this. His name is Kemery and he could not say exactly who or how many people decide what information is allowed to be kept confidential! Nor did he know how many claims of confidentiality have been submitted and how many were granted! I don’t know about you grunts out there, but if this were my job, I’d be walking. Who do they work for, after all? And what is their job? Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot. They work for big business and their job is to hide the truth. In that regards, they are working hard.

According to the newspaper, “The Environmental Working Group, a watchdog group based in Washington, D.C., reports that less than 1% of the EPA’s enforcement and compliance budget is spent on the Toxic Substances Control Act. Renee Sharpe, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, spent more than a year trying to get information from the EPA about some of the chemicals under the program, only to be denied at every turn.” And then they quoted Ms. Sharpe as saying, “It’s pretty outrageous, isn’t it?” And my retort: YES!

It is amazing to me that the EPA spends so much time and energy advising companies on how to keep information confidential and at the same time, avoiding helping consumers. They don’t seem to be at all concerned that some company (or many) may be dumping poison into consumer products and endangering the American people! I find this outrageous and if they don’t get their act together pronto, they need to be dismantled. This is obviously a waste of our taxpayer dollars and another example of corporate welfare. Why are we paying to protect our enemies? And that’s what business is lining up to be.. an enemy to public interests.

Another thing about the EPA that bugs me is their website. Not only is it hard to navigate but if you’re there to read these reports, as deep and complicated as they are, you will have a damn hard time finding them. You can’t just look up a chemical by it’s name or even by the company that makes it! You just have to shuffle through endless filings, month after month after month, in the hopes of finding the chemical or company you’re looking for. This is another effort at secrecy and inaccessibility if you ask me. There is no excuse for this. I am a low rate web developer and publisher and I could come up with a database that works better than the one they have. And they are the Government! But, again, I must defer to the fact that the Bush Administration did not fund them and so perhaps they had to make do.

Also there have been no updates on the site and where there are, there are huge gaps in reporting. For instance, there are no current chemical reports. The newest ones are years old. If this pisses you off like it does me, then maybe you can take a moment to do something about it! Go to the site and click on the “contact” link and write them a letter of complaint. Another action you could take is to go on your local reps website and send them a note asking them to work for funding the EPA. The laws are there, we don’t need more of those, we just need some money going to the right programs. This is important because the EPA has basically gone unfunded since Jimmy Carter left office. Currently, the stimulus bill includes funding for environmental measures within the EPA. Just take a moment to write the President and ask that he make sure this includes chemical oversight. For the sake of tomorrow and the safety of our kids.

Technorati Tags: chemicals, epa, danger, environmental hazards, environment, government, poisons, regulations, rules, products, shopping, toxins

Now, here’s the thing. I’ve always wondered if the solutions to all these problems might be simple. After all, that’s the way it works in my own life; I spend endless hours and energy running through mazes and jumping through hoops only to discover that the solution was down a straight and simple path. Perhaps this is what we are doing to ourselves in the matter of planetary warming. Perhaps there is a lot of money in making it complicated. And be it not me who would deny people work and income. Yet, I can’t help but think about something I heard.

The sad part about our abilities to move ahead on this problem is the global economic crisis, which has taken precedence. The cost of proposed green initiatives is becoming a huge factor as world governments consider drafting environmental policies. This shift in priorities was evident in the last round of U.N. climate talks in Poland. After a full two weeks of negotiation, it looked as if participants were no closer to consensus on the terms of the treaty that will replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol. The current treaty, created in 1992, requires most developed nations to reduce their carbon emissions. But, currently, overall cost is one of the main reasons for this persistent stalemate on emissions caps.

But there was one interesting solution presented. The IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) issued a report that notes that if governments worked to exploit the natural capacity of forests to absorb carbon dioxide and deliberately aimed to increase the carbon sink that forests create, as much as 40 to 50% of human carbon emissions could be offset. I think this is fantastic and should be done like now. Please refer to my previous post on carbon sinks. Still, to my mind, the even more astounding fact is that this extraordinary possibility has been largely ignored.

For years, we have been told to “plant trees”. Communities have offered various rewards, from tax breaks to discounts on city services, in exchange for planting trees. Environmental organizations worldwide keep encouraging folks to plant trees, on their own property or to donate so that others can plant on theirs. These are all wonderful ideas and I’m sure helpful in the long run. But what if governments PAID to have hundreds of thousands of trees planted everywhere? I mean, fill up the existing forests, replant where loggers take down, instead of clearing forests create new, plant on farmlands, plant in suburbs and even section off large sections of land unusable for other purposes and just plant trees? I mean, wouldn’t that be a big solution to our global warming mess? I mean, it would cost an awful lot less and be easier to get agreement on than the high and mighty solutions they are toying with now.

Now, it’s not like I’m saying it’s ok to keep pouring smoke and carbon into the atmosphere and just plant trees. I’m thinking that we would have to cut back a lot less if we did, though. Working with other initiatives, like the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), Greenpeace and the European Commission, who have long sought to halt commercial forestry worldwide and to partner with any new global contract to halt emissions. These organizations argue that, if developing countries in tropical regions cease harvesting natural forests for lumber and other resources, emissions will be reduced by around 20%. And, this I must admit, is true. But it isn’t the only solution.

As the IPCC report shows, if governments actively build forests worldwide, this simple action would more than double that rate of absorption and do so at lower cost. Why not marry the two? Why not stop stripping the rainforest and start planting new? And I don’t mean a tree or two in everyone’s yard, although that’s a good thing, too and everyone should do it, but to make a worldwide effort to plant enmasse. Is this too cheap for the powers that be? Would it not provide enough opportunity for deal making and money grabbing? That is just too bad. Sad that such a simple solution exists within our reach and it is just being ignored. Maybe if you wrote your senators and representatives and made such a suggestion, it might bring it to the table. All we can do is try.

Technorati Tags: carbon, climate change, deforestation, emissions, environment, forests, global warming, government, kyoto protocol, rainforest, reduction, regulations, sustainable, trees

A company called “LiveFuels” has announced the start of pilot operations at the company’s test facility in Brownsville, TX. The facility consists of 45 acres of open saltwater ponds and will be used for research on optimizing algal productivity and increasing the rates of conversion of biomass into renewable oils. LiveFuels grows a robust mix of native algae species in low-cost, open-water systems. This is in stark contrast to may other companies who grow singular cultures of algae and often genetically modified strains. As a natural, environmentally friendly business, LiveFuels harvests the algae by using “algae grazers,” which includes such natural harvesters as filter-feeding fish and a variety of other aquatic herbivores. This in place of expensive and energy-intensive mechanical equipment. As a result, these species can easily be processed into renewable oils and many other valuable co-products.

To date, LiveFuels has filed ten U.S. patents for its proprietary approach to growing and harvesting algal biomass. At the Brownsville facility, the company will conduct research on optimizing the productivity of natural aquatic ecosystems through biological and environmental conditions. The results will be used for an expansion to full-scale commercial operations along the coast of Louisiana. And all of this is being done in this revolutionary, environmentally friendly fashion. Kudos. to LiveFuels.

The future planned commercial facilities will be designed to harness flows of agricultural pollution from the Mississippi River that can then be used as nutrients for generating algal blooms. This is much the way pollution brings about mass algae blooms in the river outside my home. In a process whereby they remove these nutrients from river flows, LiveFuels’ systems also mitigate the impacts of agricultural pollution in the open ocean. And boy are we looking forward to that!

Technorati Tags: algae, biofuels, conservation, energy, fuel, green, renewable, renewables, sustainable

As of today, now playing in a theatre near you, is a film with a fascinating new look at the oil industry and it’s dark side. CRUDE, the film, tells a shocking story that Chevron, the 5th largest company on this planet, does not want the world to know. Like, The Cove, another documentary about the uglier side of industry, this one is a bombshell that should awaken everyone who sees it to the environmental tragedies that are ongoing here on Earth and the battle to save our planet.

Three years in the making by acclaimed filmmaker Joe Berlinger (Brother’s Keeper, Paradise Lost, and Metallica: Some Kind of Monster), CRUDE chronicles the epic legal battle to hold Chevron accountable for its systematic contamination of the Ecuadorian Amazon. If you are not aware of the disaster, it was an environmental tragedy experts call the “Amazon Chernobyl,” and believe is the worst case of oil-related contamination on Earth. I have had my own firsthand experience with the self absorbed and mostly indifferent oil industry in my own life; we had a property that was contaminated by big oil and basically lost our fight. I know how hard it is to battle these powerful people.

But here’s the story on this current battle. While drilling in the Ecuadorian Amazon from 1964 to 1990, Texaco, which is now called Chevron, deliberately dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater, spilled roughly 17 million gallons of crude oil, and left hazardous waste in hundreds of open pits dug out of the forest floor. The company selfishly resorted to substandard practices that were obsolete in order to increase its profit margin by a mere $3 per barrel of crude. Of course, the local people and ecosystems paid the price instead, and at a much higher price than $3.00. In fact, many have paid with their lives and their livelihoods. But, good for them, they have been fighting back and this is where the film comes in.

Centering on a landmark lawsuit filed by the indigenous people and campesinos who continue to suffer a severe public health crisis caused by Chevron’s contamination, CRUDE is a n edge of your seat legal thriller with 30,000 Amazon rainforest dwellers facing down the San Ramon, California-based oil behemoth. It brings back memories for me, as you can imagine. This is a fight for their lives but one that will be very hard to win. It also brings back memories of Erin Brockevich for me, which I thought was a brilliant movie about a wonderful woman. Crude, I am happy to say, is also brilliant and moving. And I am pulling for the Amazon rainforest dwellers for sure.

Also featured in the film is Amazon Watch’s “Clean Up Ecuador” campaign which is leading the grassroots efforst to promote this film as well as enlisting human rights and environmental allies across the nation. As a result, numerous organizations have pledged support and committed to concrete efforts to build excitement and interest in this film. These groups include Rainforest Action Network, Oxfam USA, WITNESS, EarthRights International, Human Rights Watch, and Global Green. These are highly rated charities on Charity Navigator and are well known worldwide.

CRUDE is not just a documentary. It is a gripping thriller that grabs you and holds your interest. Filmmaker Joe Berlinger shows all sides of this monumental case and the stories and people behind it. Also, to be fair, Chevron is given plenty of opportunity to present it’s viewpoint. Unfortunately for them, in the end, truth does appear to pick a side and it’s not Chevron’s. But most of all, the film gives us a glimpse of the beauty and mystery of the Amazon and its indigenous cultures, and puts a human face on the devastation left there by three decades of oil operations. It also tells the story of what it takes to go up against one of the most powerful companies on the planet. And this is a story every consumer in this country should know.

There are many inspiring stories and fascinating real-life characters, from Cofán indigenous people who live their lives out in the jungle and travel to the shareholder meetings to make their case to the high stepping, fast talking lawyers and executives who seem to care only for faceless minions on Wall Street and whether their stock will sell at a high enough price.

This is a killer movie that tells an important story. It is inspiring, powerful, engaging, and, yes, highly entertaining. As well, the release of CRUDE comes at a moment of unprecedented importance in the campaign to hold Chevron accountable and achieve justice for the people of the Ecuadorian Amazon. What’s more, a victory for this grassroots campaign will send shockwaves through the oil industry and corporate boardrooms around the world, forever changing the way companies do business. Boy, do I look forward to that!

To see the trailer for this film, go HERE.

Technorati Tags: amazon, carbon, chevron, climate change, corporate mischief, ecology, environment, fuel, gas, movie, petroleum, poisons, pollution, rainforest, texaco, toxins