Green Daily

Often times, I find myself being lazy about living a greener life. I think we've all been there. Maybe you just go ahead and bag all of your groceries in plastic bags. Maybe you throw that newspaper in the trash because you don't want to carry it all the way back home to throw into the recycling bin. Maybe if you're trying to go vegetarian, you just have that chicken sandwich one day. The fact is, none of us are perfect and any little thing we can do -- even if it's not every little thing -- helps in the long run.

But what can we do to motivate ourselves to stay green-minded?

The most effective answer to this question is to simply surround yourself with "green". No, that doesn't mean paint your bedroom walls olive drab, it means that you need to do something to get the flow of your life into that certain mindset. Whether it's joining an eco-friendly social group, or simply subscribing to multiple RSS feeds on green news, the constant flow will keep you motivated and help you realize how effective you can really be when you choose to live more for our planet. It may be hard now, especially if you're the only person in your social circle who thinks this way, but eventually you'll develop a habit and the environment (and our future generations) will thank you for it!

At a time when so many people are enthusiastic about the possibility of renewable energy, it's almost hard to believe that developers are pushing coal power plants in almost every state in the US. An astounding 150 coal-burning power plants have been planned since 2002, and it seems like there's some kind of a race going on to get these plants built before the green movement can shut them down. The Sierra Club has reportedly put a halt to 63 of the projects already, and Tuesday they set their sights on 8 more.

In February, a D.C. federal appeals court ruled that the EPA had violated the Clean Air Act, and should have required mandatory cuts on mercury emissions for all new power plants -- thus giving the Sierra Club more ammunition to attack the mercury and carbon-spewing power plants. The leaders of 8 coal projects across 5 states got letters this week from the Sierra Club, saying that their plans should be resubmitted to their state agencies to get approved under the newer emissions standards -- or else get sued. Nice.

The Army Corps of Engineers has frustrated me for a while. Why do we trust them to do a good job on major jobs that affect a lot of lives, when they're not really overseen by anybody and they have a huge personal financial interest in perpetuating giant engineering projects which may or may not be what's needed for the environment? And why do we keep calling Hurricane Katrina a "natural disaster," when it seems clear that the Corps' bad planning led to the breaks in the levees that ruined so many homes and killed so many people? Is it because we're just too afraid to challenge an organization which combines the two authoritative words "Army" and "engineer" in its name?

Well, the good times may be over for the Corps. The organization may now be held liable for damages to Katrina sufferers' homes, after a judge ruled that the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, a Corps-constructed shipping channel, contributed to the destruction in New Orleans in 2005. New Orleanians had been trying to get the channel shut down, because of the danger to the city during a storm surge, but the Corps refused, and instead built levees along the side - on soil that shifted, rendering some levees useless. It will be interesting to how the lawsuits go - how many people will choose to sue? How public will the suits be? And will the Corps maintain its mysterious aura of omnipotence after this is all over with?

Via Envirowonk

Free the celery! Switzerland could be the first country in the world to give rights to plants. The Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology has issued a report saying that plants have certain inalienable rights simply by virtue of being living things, and we can't just do whatever we want with them. In the words of the report, "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."

The report does allow - rather grudgingly - that human life takes precedence over plant happiness, so eating a potato now and again to stave off starvation is probably ok. However, casual violence against say, tulips, is an affront to the dignity of the flower, to avoided at all costs.

Is veggie liberation the next great frontier of social justice? Can we look forward to being taken to court by our hibiscus for underwatering? Will we see a million-melon march on Washington?

Probably not - this concept is a little extreme even for the most committed treehugger, and likely doesn't demonstrate much except that there are people within the Swiss government who have way too much time on their hands. Still, something to think about next time you're torturing steaming that head of broccoli.

The full English language report is available here .

via [The Weekly Standard]

Last year, the US Congress signed a bill preventing federal agencies from investing money into alternative fuel projects that produce more polluting effects than oil and gas. This was certainly a step in the right direction, but could it possibly be true that Congress is considering a repeal of that bill, in order to explore investments in Canada's tar sands and oil shale projects? Yes, it is true, but environmental groups across North America are fighting to do something about it by petitioning the government through their senators.

In case you're wondering what tar sand is, it's basically a heavy crude oil mixed with sand, clay and rock. The process of extracting and refining it into a usable crude for vehicle and industrial consumption is not only much more expensive to process, but its effect on our environment is much larger than convention oil well drilling. Tar sand extracting does currently occur in North America, and the US does currently invest in it, but with last year's Section 526 bill, we had hoped this practice would have slowed to a halt.

This post is part of a series about environmental justice, or EJ for short. The easiest way to understand EJ is to ask: Broadly speaking, are the costs of environmental degradation distributed consistently with the benefits? For instance, are the countries who are creating the most CO2 emissions suffering the lowest air standards? For a more in-depth definition, visit the EPA, Justice Net, or the Sierra Club.

This New York Times article about the Gullah/ Geechee people's fight to keep their land in Sapelo Island, Georgia, brings up some of the more difficult aspects of environmental justice. Who doesn't think it would be wonderful to live in a beautiful place? Sometimes in our quest to do that we over look those who already live there, whether they are human or more-than-human.

The members of the Hog Hammock community on Sapelo Island are fighting a battle familiar to anyone who has lived in a coastal area: rising property values based on second home and vacation property prospecting. Sapelo, accessible only by limited ferryboat shuttle, has maintained its salt marsh ecosystem, anthropologically valuable shell middens, and its cultural heritage more than most islands. Nearby Hilton Head, Tybee, and St. Simon's islands have all been nearly razed over in builders' attempts to get the most vacation homes possible on the desirable island real estate.

Just the other day, Shawn reminded us how hazardous it is to burn paper and cardboard. So why in the world would Nairobi instate a program that encourages this act?

Because the government does not recognize Nairobi's slums (like Kibera), those who live there have no city services like trash pickup. The rubbish builds and builds, creating a noxious stench and seeping into the water where children play. But several people - including an environmental firm - have an idea that might change all that.

I admit, I've often thought of just giving it all up and living in my car or a small RV. Just think of all the things you wouldn't have to deal with anymore. You could have a different backyard every day, anywhere in the country you'd like to visit. Your expenses would be minimal and the basic necessities of life are mostly all achievable through public means. You'd have the complete freedom to do whatever you like whenever you want, without being tied down to a crushing mortgage payment or rising utility bills.

This is the occasional life of Jassen Bowman who tells us an incredible story of his voluntary adventures in living the mobile life. While I admire his simplistic outlook on life and the way he distances himself from a dependancy on materialism, he also makes quite a point to relay the positive impact that a downsized life has on the environment. You may think living in a car or RV would be harmful with the gas usage, but consider the comparison to the energy used in an average American home.

I guess the argument could go either way, if you take long-term environmental impact into consideration. What are some of your opinions?

Yesterday, while thinking of ways to reuse flip-flops, I found an interesting video online of Kenyans turning used flip-flops into toys, jewelry and sculptures. UniquEco Designs takes the thousands of used flip flops that wash up on Africa's shores and turns them into art. The products are then put up for sale which does two things; eliminates the need to dispose of all of that garbage and provides the artisans of East Africa with a steady income. What a great company!

While it seems like the world of eco-fashion is bursting with growth potential, investors are apparently not feeling the love for green clothing startups in these shaky economic times. Citing an inability to raise funds for the next quarter, Portland-based eco-fashion company Nau is calling it quits after only 14 months. Founded by ex-Nike and ex-Patagonia executives, Nau's mission was to blend fashion, environmentalism, and social activism into an experimental business model -- donating 5% of all sales to non-profits.

The tragic part of Nau's plight is that the operations side of their business model was actually working -- it was their timing that proved to be their undoing. After turning out high quality sustainable products, stronger than expected sales, and donating $223,000 to non-profits through their customer-directed Partners for Change program, the drying up of venture capital has driven Nau to the breaking point. Bummer. Their unique way of doing business has definitely left its mark in the world of green business. Right now, they're entire inventory is 50% off.

[via Treehugger]

The news this week that natural climate cycles may see planetary temperatures plateauing for a decade or so was a gift to climate change deniers. That select group of fact-ignorers have pulled their heads out of the tar sands long enough to declare victory and claim the news as proof that manmade climate change is a hoax, and that humanity can now look forward to a future of worry-free polluting. Excellent stuff, and reassuring.

Unfortunately, real scientists don't agree, saying that the shift may disguise - briefly - some of the effects of global warming, but not much, and not for long. But that doesn't matter, because the war against the truth of climate change is about PR, not science.

We've recently heard claims that capturing heat-trapping carbon dioxide from factory exhaust is going to save our environment. The captured CO2 would be entombed in porous rocks and buried beneath the earth. Does this sound like a safe alternative to you?

Well curiously enough, the WWF thinks so, and they're willing to fight for this type of environmental change to take place very soon. They say it's not an answer, but simply a method of buying time until something more effective can be created. Their argument is that it's better than nothing at this critical point. But many environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, are vehemently against this, calling it a scam and a way for more coal-burning power plants to be created under the veil of no newly harmful environmental impact.

I tend to agree with Greenpeace on this one. Locking away our toxicity hasn't worked for us before (see also overfilling landfills and nuclear waste storage). It only postpones the harmfulness for our future generations. That's certainly not saving the earth.

Does it make you mad that a bunch of jerks in the 1800s killed off all the buffalo, making it nearly impossible for you to ever see a wild herd grazing on the plains? For those who trivialize man's impact on the planet, the buffalo are a good reminder. It only took a couple of generations to drive the gigantic herds of North America to near extinction.

Surprisingly, some conservationists say that there's still hope. Researchers at the Wildlife Conservation Society are optimistic that we may get a chance to see wild herds of bison roaming through North America again -- and sooner than you probably think.

At the opening of The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan has purchased a cow. He hoped to follow Steer number 534 from his start in a massive feedlot to his end, on a dinner table. Unfortunately, Pollan wasn't able to follow his steer as far as he hoped. But his idea may have had some influence on Scott Ballum, a Brooklyn resident who has decided to follow the chain of his consumption.

His Mission: "A year-long effort to meet the laborers and craftsmen who build what I buy – and put a human face on consumption. For every transaction, there must be a personal connection with someone along the production chain."

That hasn't meant he's given up his Kentucky-brewed Maker's Mark, but he did shake hands with one of the guys who turns the barrels.

More chicken-hating porn stars

Adult entertainment superstar Ron Jeremy has surfaced on the PETA website, in a video interview where he opines on what KFC should do to make their food more cruelty free. Jeremy, a man who's no stranger to the phrase "finger-lickin' good", wants the Colonel to raise his prices by a few cents a bucket and invest in more humane farming techniques.

While it remains to be seen how much influence Jeremy will have over the chicken-eating public, he and PETA are a nice fit - an organization committed to public nudity in a good cause, and a man whose drumstick is already familiar to millons of adult film enthusiasts. Can we expect to see Ron crouched naked in a cage in Covent Garden in the near future? And is it weird to be looking forward to that?

Can you guess the nude PETA celebrity?