Green Daily

Getting yourself in the mood

Shawn Schuster — 2008-05-10T16:27:00 00:00

Filed under: Activism

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!

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Sierra Club takes on coal power nationwide

Josh Loposer — 2008-05-10T11:21:00 00:00

Filed under: Activism, Climate Change

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.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Army Corps of Engineers may finally get called out

Rebecca Onion — 2008-05-09T14:45:00 00:00

Filed under: Polit-eco, Activism

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

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

I have a dream: finally, legal rights for vegetables

Patrick Metzger — 2008-05-09T12:30:00 00:00

Filed under: Food, Activism

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]

Is investing in tar sands a good idea?

Shawn Schuster — 2008-05-09T09:31:00 00:00

Filed under: Cars and Transportation, Activism, Climate Change

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.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Beachfront battles

Leslie Wolcott — 2008-05-07T15:35:00 00:00

Filed under: Home, Local, Activism

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.

The problem is that as we develop real estate on islands like this, we take away just what makes them attractive. Building too close to the water endangers very delicate sand dune ecosystems. Bright lights along the coast scare away sea turtles, who come ashore to lay their eggs. For the Gullahs on Sapelo, development also endangers the way that they have always lived.

These islands, though, have a history that has been both well-documented and, according to some, unfairly appropriated by outsiders. The Gullah / Geechee people, descendants in part of West African slaves, have preserved some unique language and cultural practices -- one of which is the beautiful basket weaving famous also in Charleston's downtown market. This cultural preservation has come in the face of a number of challenges, not the least of which is higher and higher real estate prices.

In a world with limited land and a population that continues to grow exponentially, where do we find the balance between preserving culture and history and the "free market" property system? Is it possible that we don't place appropriate values on all the values a piece of land can contain?

Read more about the Sapelo Island Cultural and Revitalization Society.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Improve the environment by...burning trash?

Ellen Slattery — 2008-05-07T10:00:00 00:00

Filed under: News, Activism

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.
It's called a community cooker. After trial and error, they came up with a way to burn the slum's trash: burning oil and then mixing it with vaporized water droplets to result in a super-hot smoke without the dangerous toxins.

The cooker is also creating jobs. Young men go around and collect rubbish, which they can exchange for cooking time at the cooker, or hot water for washing. And in addition to sanitizing water, the cooker will soon be used for baking bread and cakes.

Members of the community are also noticing improvement in their general health, now that the rubbish is being cleaned up and properly disposed of.

The project sounds promising - but is the resulting smoke being produced by the cooker actually safe?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Would you live in your car?

Shawn Schuster — 2008-05-05T19:02:00 00:00

Filed under: Cars and Transportation, Activism, Climate Change

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?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The (Flip Flop) Recycling Company

Kelly Leahy — 2008-05-05T16:30:00 00:00

Filed under: Fashion, Shopping Guide, Activism

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!

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Bye bye Nau: sustainable apparel company hangs it up

Josh Loposer — 2008-05-05T16:01:00 00:00

Filed under: Fashion, News, Activism

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]

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Note to climate change deniers: It's real, you idiots

Patrick Metzger — 2008-05-05T15:30:00 00:00

Filed under: Activism, Climate Change

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.

Who are these so-called skeptics, or deniers? They claim that climate change isn't happening, and it's not our fault, and anyway it's too expensive or too late to do anything about the thing that isn't happening and isn't our fault. They present their case as if the topic were still up for debate, which it most emphatically is not. While experts disagree on many details about climate change - it's an immensely complex subject - there's an overwhelming consensus that it's here, we're a major cause, and we need to do something about it now.

It's not like the truth isn't out there. For an excellent summary, I recommend a terrific site by former physicist John Cook which takes each denier argument one by one and demolishes them with a simple application of the facts. Cook also offers a list of major scientific organizations who support the idea of anthropogenic climate change (the short version is, pretty much all of them.)

So why do the deniers do it? In the case of the more organized groups, there may be a simple profit motive. One of the groups most active in promoting a denial agenda is the Heartland Institute, which according to Greenpeace site Exxonsecrets.org has received $791,000 in funding from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006 (The Institute's latest achievements include sending grade schools unsolicited DVDs which make wildly unscientific claims about climate change, and publishing a list of "500 Scientists WIth Documented Doubts About Manmade Global Warming Scares" , which, as DeSmogBlog.com notes, within a couple days of posting got at least 45 angry replies from scientists on the list saying that they refute unequivocally the Heartland Institute claims.)

Groups like this have easy but effective techniques to spread their distorted message - firstly, use the language of science, and put it in the mouths of people who sound like scientists, even if their expertise is not in climatology, or their findings have already been discredited. Send portentous bulletins to the press, pronouncing each industry-funded junk science study as a new discovery that disproves everything we know about climate change. Hold conferences where the various shills, cranks, and liars of the Anti-Global Warming movement can come together, wear ties, and pat each other on the back over lunch .

That's the aristocracy of deniers, but the core community of letter-to-the-editor blitherers and online trolls who surface, fists raised, at the first mention of global warming or even a nasty weather report, have a variety of motivations. While their continued belief is fed by the stream of disinformation from groups like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, there's evidently an array of unsettling psychological factors that draw individuals to this nonsense, including:

Politics. Liberal hippies types believe in climate change. I hate them, so they're wrong.
Fear. Global warming is scary, so I refuse to believe in it.
Economics. Fixing this might make gas prices more expensive, so it can't be broken.
Conspiracy. Big Solar is looking to shut down the struggling oil industry.
Psychosis. Things are only true if I think they are.

Scientists go where the science leads, and in this case that's to a theory of human-caused climate change. Deniers go where their agenda takes them, which is to an intellectual place that's becoming more bizarre and irrational every day. It would be quaint - like the Flat Earth Society - if it weren't for the fact that these people can create enough doubt in the public mind to prevent us from doing the things that need to be done to prevent catastrophe.

To the deniers I say, your schtick isn't cute anymore. Educate yourselves, and do the right thing - you've got to live here too.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Burying CO2 may not be the answer

Shawn Schuster — 2008-05-05T15:04:00 00:00

Filed under: Activism, Climate Change

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.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Buffalo-sized comeback

Josh Loposer — 2008-05-05T10:45:00 00:00

Filed under: News, Activism

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.

Formed at the Bronx Zoo in 1905, the WCS has been trying to repopulate the Great Plains using its bison herd for the past century. After going through a ton of sites with their "conservation scorecard," conservationists think that surprisingly large swaths of the continent are still able to sustain herds of buffalo. Only about 20,000 buffalo are considered wild today, while about 480,000 live on ranches.

While it does give me some pause to consider what would happen when a buffalo herd crosses a major roadway -- i.e. a buffalo vs. Honda collision -- bringing back the buffalo would be a huge victory for conservation. Especially since the buffalo went from a symbol of the untouched natural world of North America, to a symbol of North Americans and their blatant disregard for the environment. The big question for us is not whether we can bring the buffalo back, but have we really changed our mindset enough?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The trip between a whiskey bottle and its processing plant

Sea Stachura — 2008-05-04T13:15:00 00:00

Filed under: Food, Health, News, Activism

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.
He's documenting his experiences, thoughts and travels in a blog. In one entry he asks how this experiment has changed his life. "The honest answer is that I'm finding it affects everything. Generally, I haven't sacrificed anything major (a cup of coffee while out and about, using hair product since I've run out) but it has changed how I buy things, and I've definitely started making substitutions. I make coffee at home everyday, with coffee from the Co-op."

The blog also has resources for his viewers, books on his reading list, sites he's found useful. Pollan's book is not to be found, but I have no doubt the cultural impact of that tomb is somewhere in the pixels on that page.

[via Gothamist]

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Ron Jeremy takes on Colonel Sanders for PETA

Patrick Metzger — 2008-05-04T10:26:00 00:00

Filed under: Celebrities, Food, Activism

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?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Report: Industrial animal farming huge risk to health, environment

Patrick Metzger — 2008-05-02T18:06:00 00:00

Filed under: Food, News, Activism

We all know that factory farms are bad news for the cows, pigs and chickens who live out their short, crowded lives in these animal Auschwitz' , but evidence is mounting that the system is pretty unhealthy for the human population as well. A report from the Pew Commission says that the current methods of industrial animal farming pose "unacceptable risks" to human health and the environment.

On the health front, the report notes that animals today are packed together far more closely than they were a few decades ago, significantly increasing the risk of transmission of dangerous pathogens amongst themselves and across to the human population. Moreover, overenthusiastic use of antibiotics is creating drug-resistant bugs that could emerge as an even greater threat.

From an environmental point of view, these massive farms are the source of a variety of unpleasant byproducts, including hormones, pesticides, heavy metals like zinc and copper, and of course antibiotics, most of which eventually end up in the water table and your kids bloodstream. Beyond that, raising animals for food is estimated to be the cause of about 18% of the manmade greenhouse gases that are currently making the earth so delightfully balmy.

For the record, I'm not vegetarian myself and it doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy to think that my meat jonesing may be killing not just innocent livestock, but the whole planet. Until I kick the habit, I guess I'll stick to organic and free-range only.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Sting and others rock for the Rainforest Foundation

Josh Loposer — 2008-05-02T16:30:00 00:00

Filed under: Celebrities, Activism

Looking for something to blow your economic stimulus check on in the Big Apple? How about putting it towards a ticket for Sting's Rainforest Foundation benefit concert. Sting and his wife Trudie Styler might have a hypocritically large carbon footprint, but they more than make up for it by bringing in huge donations to protect rainforest areas in 23 countries. They do a pretty good job too -- in 1993, they were instrumental in getting a 17,000 square mile area of the Amazon legally recognized as Indigenous Area.

The couple will be celebrating their charity's 20th anniversary at Carnegie hall next Thursday at 7PM, and they hope to net $2M for the rainforest. The concert will feature performances by James Taylor, Billy Joel, Brian Wilson (my personal fave), and Sting -- of course. Kind of a middle aged roster, but hey -- the idea is to target people that have money. After the show, guests are invited to an organic dinner at the Plaza Hotel, where there will be a charity auction. Tickets range from $175-$400.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Ryan Gosling sticks it to KFC Canada

Josh Loposer — 2008-05-02T09:02:00 00:00

Filed under: Celebrities, Food, Activism

There's no shortage of celebs who will line up to bash KFC's faming practices, but few have directed their contempt at the Canadian wing of the chicken empire, until now. Ryan Gosling -- who you may remember from such chick-flicks as The Notebook -- decided it was time to take to the power of the pen, writing a letter on behalf of PETA to the head of KFC's Canadian operations, John Bitove.

Upon first reading, I thought: Ryan Gosling's Canadian? Then later: KFC is super stubborn to continue taking such high profile flack for the cruel way they get their chicken. Seriously, PETA goes overboard with their campaigns about half the time, but you'd think that KFC would budge a little after having a website called Kentucky Fried Cruetly attacking them non-stop. Maybe just some little token changes in the chicken killing? How about it KFC? Honestly, I'm sick of hearing about it.

Read Ryan's letter after the jump.

Dear Mr. Bitove:

I am discouraged to hear that KFC Canada has not intervened to eliminate the abuses that birds raised and killed for KFC restaurants suffer, despite the strides that are being made by other companies.

I understand that KFC Canada is still allowing its suppliers to scald chickens to death in scorching-hot water tanks and that many birds still suffer broken wings and legs because of violent treatment prior to slaughter. As a Canadian, I hope that you'll set a good example for KFC operators in the U.S. and elsewhere by stopping the worst abuses endured by the birds killed for KFC Canada's buckets. Won't you please consider setting a precedent that all other KFCs can follow?

The time is ripe to do the right thing. By adopting the basic recommendations made by PETA and scientific experts (including raising birds in a more natural manner and employing less cruel slaughter methods), you could
dramatically improve the lives and deaths of chickens raised and killed for KFC Canada.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ryan Gosling
[via Ecorazzi]

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Rockefellers call for Exxon climate change action

Patrick Metzger — 2008-04-30T08:30:00 00:00

Filed under: Polit-eco, GreenFinance, Activism, Climate Change

When you and I holler about global warming, it may not mean much, but when a group of folks whose name is immortalized in the song "Puttin' on the Ritz" start complaining, people sit up and take notice.

A group of descendants of John D. Rockefeller, founder of ExxonMobil predecessor Standard Oil, are calling for a shake-up in management at the oil giant, saying that the company is "failing to address the future of energy". The family are apparently concerned about Exxon's late and reluctant conversion to climate change belief, and subsequent failure to do much about the issue.

The group is looking to have the jobs of Chairman and CEO, currently both held by Rex Tillerson, to be split into two separate roles. It's not known exactly how much Exxon stock the family actually owns, so it's unclear whether their request will have any impact.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The greenest colleges in America

Shawn Schuster — 2008-04-29T14:34:00 00:00

Filed under: Activism, Alternative Energy

College campuses have always been havens for progressive thought, especially when it comes to environmental concerns and global change. It seems simple recycling programs just aren't enough anymore; college students and faculty are doing more than ever to promote green living.

You can review the list of the Top 12 Greenest Colleges in America to see if your school, or a school near you is featured. Some highlights of this list include the pioneer of carbon-neutral colleges, one with its own 13-acre organic farm used to fund student projects, the increased use of alternative-energy campus vehicles, motion-detectors on classroom lights, solar panels installed on campus buildings, hydropower and windpower.

I hope with the inclusion of such high-profile Ivy League schools as Harvard and Yale on this list, it will inspire many other college campuses to go green.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments