Green Daily

What's going to happen to all those old analog TVs which will become obsolete when the nation switches over to digital? The environmental activists campaigning outside the Consumer Electronics Show in LA last week had one answer: analog TVs will end up toxic zombie space-suckers in our landfills. (After everyone tries to give theirs away on Craigslist, that is.)

Some good news about this is that a couple of major TV manufacturers have instituted programs to recycle old sets. Sony, Samsung, and LG already have recycling programs; Texas Campaign for the Environment reports that three other companies, Toshiba, Panasonic, and Sharp, have announced that they, too, will start programs. That leaves the TV Companies of Shame, Mitsubishi, Philips, JVC, and Hitachi, who have, so far, turned a blind eye to this big problem.

But it also leaves us, as consumers, responsible for checking up on the programs that the companies institute - we don't want all those "recycled" TVs to end up in Chinese landfills.

*Photo by Beige Alert on Flickr

The website Extreme Craft, whose awesome tagline is "A compendium of art masquerading as craft, craft masquerading as art, and craft extending its middle finger," is soliciting submissions for an upcoming book of craft ideas.

The blog's intent is to create a book of what they call "21st-century craft and design, all made with recycled, upcycled, repurposed, and reused items." The people running the contest are open to all varieties of final project: jewelry, clothing, accessories, household items, kids' toys, vehicle accessories...if you craft it, they want to see it. And of course, the more esoteric and counterintuitive your foundational materials are, the better.

So if you've ever spent a fevered afternoon making a purse out of old pieces of bubble wrap and scraps of yarn, then sat back, admired your work, and thought "The world needs to know about this!," now's your chance. Only hurry - the deadline is January 6.

Okay, okay, there's no actual evidence that full-on fistfights will break out in the White House over questions of carbon capping (though at least that would be an improvement from the previous administration, because it would mean that somebody cared). But the New York Times ran an interesting and worrisome article yesterday which forecast some serious issues that key figures in the new administration may have with each other when it comes to climate policy.

In one corner: Carol Browner, former head of the EPA under Clinton, Gore protege, and proponent of strict carbon laws. In the other: Lawrence Summers, former under-secretary of the Treasury and current pick to head Obama's economic team, who has stated that he believes in global warming, but doesn't want to move too quickly on climate change (for example, by instating a carbon tax) because of potential damage it could do to the economy. Never mind the damage that could ensue if climate change causes water shortage or agricultural crisis in the long term....but we digress.

The article also outlines conflicts over environmental issues which have already arisen in the House and Senate between Democratic lawmakers from coal and auto states and those from the more lefty, urban coasts.

Last week, President-elect Obama announced the selection of two more members of his scientific team: John Holdren, who will be the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and double as Obama's go-to guy as science advisor; and Jane Lubchenco, who will head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Holdren is a former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Science, a job which (hopefully) prepared him well for this gig, which involves coordinating the efforts of forty scientists who will shape the science and tech policies of the new administration (we hear that herding scientists is way harder than herding cats, so good luck to you). Lubchenco is a professor at Oregon State who specializes in overfishing and issues relating to climate change.

Most importantly, in marked contrast to the denial-ain't-just-a-river-in-Egypt mode of the Bush admin's science advisors, both appointees have often made strong statements about the impact of climate change (Holdren: "There is already widespread harm...occurring from climate change. This is not just a problem for our children and our grandchildren").

Unfortunately for dirty-minded David Lynch fans, Isabella's involvement in the new Sundance Channel series Green Porn does not extend beyond that of a friendly tour guide. Following in the footsteps of nature-porn pioneer Dr. Tatiana, Rossellini shows us how the littlest denizens of our biospheres, such as snails and worms, get it on.

Some good news for those of us without TVs in our houses: you can see the series online. Looks interesting, especially the black bodysuit that Izzy sports on occasion.

Also online, published in conjunction with the release of the series, is a quiz: "What Kind of Green Porno Star Are You?" This must be the most bizarre hybrid of Seventeen and National Geographic ever to hit the Internets. I took the quiz and was told that, like the firefly, I'm a flirt. I just hope nobody tries to catch me a glass jar and leave me on the bureau all night long.

Good news for Mac addicts who are sick of trying to balance their eco-consciousness with their unquenchable desire for white plastic hipster technology: the latest iPod Nano, unveiled last week, is a big improvement on previous Apple products when it comes to greenness.

Apple had been targeted by Greenpeace in past years for being way less earth-thinking than their freewheeling Californian company image would lead you to believe. After the Greenpeacers began that campaign, Steve Jobs agreed to stop using BFR (brominated flame retardants) and PVC (polyvinyl chloride) in Apple products after 2009.

The Nano is a step toward that goal: its construction is BFR/PVC-free, and there's no arsenic or mercury in there either. Moreover, the Nano is classified as "highly recyclable" - a definite improvement over the old iPods (I have two or three dead one moldering in my drawer right now).

Just in time for the end of beach season, the EPA has decided to modify the way that it regulates which beaches are safe to swim in and which aren't. (By the way, environmentalists forced this modification by suing the agency-nice to see some sort of activist success story out there.)

Right now, the EPA determines whether or not a beach is safe to swim at based only on whether or not swimming there will cause gastrointestinal ailments. (Not a good way to spend a vacation, as you might be able to imagine.) The lawsuit's success means that the agency will now have to come up with a set of rules that also take other potential beach-born diseases into account. In case you didn't know, swimming in the ocean could also result in hepatitis, skin rashes, ear infections and pink eye. (Hepatitis? That's a pretty big deal!)

Now that we'll have more information about the potential illnesses caused by swimming in the ocean, maybe we'll also begin to wake up and realize that our oceans aren't too healthy themselves...

Comedy video site Funny or Die just released a video spoof starring Gina Gershon as the vice-presidential candidate who doesn't believe in the anthropogenic nature of global warming (no, that's not Joe Biden, though that would be an interesting casting decision). The video is pretty funny, especially because Gershon gets Palin's no-nonsense Marge Gunderson-flat accent down pat. At one point in the spoof, Gershon/Palin describes global warming as "P.S. - Polar Bear S**t." (I guess "Global warming is P.B.S." didn't have quite the same ring.)

I don't want to spoil the rest of the video for you, but it's pretty funny. The problem is that Palin's candidacy already looks like a spoof to me-are you kidding, she thinks it's okay to shoot wolves from airplanes? Hello, the 1890s called and wants its conservation "ethic" back!-so it's hard to laugh too much at a spoof. Well, at least if she's elected, Tina Fey and Gina Gershon will have jobs for the indefinite future...

Via Ecorazzi

Just in time for the end of summer dining season, the Chicago Tribune reported recently on the results of a study done by the EPA which confirms that women living in coastal areas of the United States are at greater risk of testing for a heightened level of mercury. In the fish-loving Northeast, one in five women of childbearing age test so high for mercury that if they were to get pregnant, there would be a serious risk that their fetus would have developmental disabilities. (Nationwide, one in ten women test at that level.)

Interestingly, affluent women are more likely to display high levels of mercury, possibly because they have the financial wherewithal to buy the more expensive fishies which also have tons of mercury (tuna, swordfish).

The results of the study have some scientists calling for an expanded warning system in which the government would issue advisories on the safety of various seafood, and possibly begin inspecting the seafood before it goes on sale. Of course, the fishing industry is very against this move.

Tina Fey look-alike Sarah Palin was chosen to be the Republican vice-presidential candidate today. The Alaska governor, who's been in office a scant two years, seems to participate in a disturbing mode of anti-green Alaskan thought. I don't know whether it's because they get paid up there when the oil companies make money, or because there's so much wild land that they can't imagine the possibility of running out of "nature," or because they use so much gas getting to and from their woodland cabins and don't want to have to feel guilty about it; regardless, Alaskans, and hence, Alaskan elected officials have a habit of being pretty brown in their thinking. (Pissed off green Alaskans, feel free to comment and prove me wrong.)

The specifics of Palin's enviro-record:

Spanish researchers have been investigating a longtime hypothesis of weather-watchers. The theory goes that human air pollution created during the week, when we all commute back and forth like madpeople, could cause an increase in rain on the weekends.

It turns out that, at least in Europe, the perception that weekends tend to be rainy more often may be supportable by long-term climate data. Correlating data from weather stations across Spain which was gathered between 1961 and 2004, the researchers found a pattern of fine weekdays and rainy weekends, and suggested that they might be able to point to weekly changes in air circulation across the broader landscape of Europe. (There goes that "rain in Spain" joke I was working towards...)

Travelers, take note: book your trips to Spain mid-week, or you might find yourself huddling in the rain instead of basking in the sun. (Or, don't book a trip to Spain at all, and cut down on the air pollution that causes the rain in the first place!)

Ever feel intensely guilty when you choose to take the car instead of the bus to the grocery store? What about that sense of doom that settles over you when you book the cross-country flight home for a much-needed fall weekend break? The New York Times today has a story on what forward-thinking psychiatrists are calling "climate change delusion": the inescapable sense that you are, in your very existence, causing the doom of the planet.

The story, which also cites other cases of culturally influenced delusions (like when patients believe that they're living in a real-life Truman Show), describes a patient who worries about drinking glasses of water because s/he is so concerned about the fate of the world's water supply.

I wish it were scientifically possible to siphon off some of the worry from these poor delusional patients and implant it surgically in the minds of world leaders and corporate honchos. Now, that would be a worthy innovation!

Ikea announced recently that it plans to invest a big chunk of change in clean technology groups, with the intent to develop products to be sold in its stores. The possible green advances in Ikea stuff that could be invented through this genius move might fall into the realm of solar panels, lighting, energy efficiency, water purification, and "product materials" in general.

The best part is that the head of Ikea's greentech group reassured the media that the new green products would remain affordable, like all things Ikea (except for those random couches that suddenly cost $1000 - what's up with that?) "Really low prices, and they should be of very good quality. That's the only thing we look at, we would never look at anything else, we would discard anything else that doesn't fall into those boundaries," he told the Cleantech Group.

The bittersweet part of this news is that these advances are still somewhat in the future - Ikea says it'll take probably between three to four years to bring the products to market.

In a move that could totally negate any sort of good outgoing green PR his administration might get from designating those ocean preserves, our pres is looking into possibly eliminating some of the protections offered by the Endangered Species Act.

The Secretary of the Interior announced yesterday that the department is investigating the possibility of eliminating the need for government agencies to get independent reviews from scientists about some development projects' potential dangers to threatened species. The revision was intended specifically to keep activists from "using" the Endangered Species laws in order to regulate global warming emissions (as in the case of the polar bear).

Something about that idea doesn't quite sit right with me. Why eliminate scientists' feedback, if not to weaken the law? I'd certainly like to hear from a wildlife biologist about possible impacts on populations before approving big changes. What does the government have to hide? (That's a rhetorical question, right?)

As if the creep factor of nuclear power didn't already make my skin crawl upon hearing certain presidential candidates propose atoms as the answer to the energy problem, this report, which says that the government has revised its estimates of the cost of waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, should do the trick.

The gov't has looked at the cost of storing waste at Yucca over a long-term projection, and found that it will cost more than they thought: 38% more than the last time they made their estimate, in 2001. This increase is due to the jump in amount of nuclear material to be stored, as well as inflation.

How much worse will the cost get if we pump up the nuclear industry in order to be "energy-independent"? If you read histories of the Manhattan Project and later government involvement in atomic science, it becomes clear that we have never really had a long-term plan or an understanding of what nuclear storage requires - so there's no reason why this estimate should hold for long...

Via Treehugger