I'm Seeing Green

Saving the Planet, One Car at a Time

I live in Park Slope, Brooklyn, arguably one of the most liberal and, hopefully, eco-conscious of areas in these United States of America. One of the odd things I note is the lack of Priuses, also arguably the most eco-conscious of automobiles.

Maybe it is a West Coast thing (California sales figures for 2007: 74,737; New York: 14,580,) in my short list of Californians I know, there are three Prius owners. If one believes the statistic that 57% of Prius owners consider that "it makes a statement about [them]," I guess that Californians are more identified with their cars than New Yorkers.

Of course, the Prius has its detractors, mainly because, while its mileage is very high and its ecological standards high, it is, as this article in the Guardian states:

In planet-saving terms, that's like being the healthiest patient in intensive care.

But although that has some truth as with all exaggerations, it's certainly better to drive a Prius than a Suburban. The point maybe being made is: are you more likely to want a car at all knowing that you can buy a Prius rather than a Suburban? How much is your guilt assuaged by its mileage?

In any event, the article is worth reading, if nothing else for the comments from Prius-owners:

From a conservative politician's wife, 65 : I think it is probably true that the car imposes calm. I like driving quite fast - I'm not going to say how fast, but my speed is probably now a bit lower than it was. People don't quite toot when you see them in the street, but there is a warm feeling when you see another Prius. Our friend John Standing, the actor, has one. He greets us and says: "Ah, my fellow Prius owners."

An organic farmer, 45: It's the only car I've ever been in love with....I can't imagine having road rage with this car.

A dentist, 55: I'm getting obsessed by it. It makes me feel a bit virtuous. I took my sister-in-law for a ride on Sunday evening and she was impressed. And she drives a Mercedes CLK, too.

Salient points: Not one driver under 45! Where are the environmentally conscious younger English drivers? Many mentioned the pleasure in "belonging to a club" as other drivers wave and "hoot" at them on the road. Many mentioned it makes them "calm"...a consequence of its relative silence? The opposite of the snarling Ferrari?

But it's better than the alternatives.

Shoot the Messengers

You may have been following the horrendous story about the Humane Society's (for whom all praise) video of "downer" (diseased or ill) cows being kicked, beaten, fork-lifted and otherwise abusively pushed towards their deaths at Hallmark Meats. If not, check out this video. Do not eat before viewing. Or read the story here. [image from hsus.org]

An amazing after-story is unfolding. Two of the perpetrators have been indicted for animal cruelty (I guess they'll be off with slaps on the wrist, I believe technically that animal cruelty laws do not apply to non-pets, which would only make sense to lawyers and politicians.) Meanwhile, the Humane Society is being blamed  (by, among others, the secretary of agriculture) for not bringing the video to public attention for several months after it was shot.

Let's get the facts straight.

After the video was made, it was turned over to California prosecutors, who sat on it for months, meanwhile telling the Society not to publicize it.

Four months?! And we're not getting on the tails of these incompetent prosecutors?

The critics are, of course concerned about the food-safety issues...not the animal cruelty ones, which maybe they should be, but what can we say about them?

What Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D, CA) said of the criticism is that "It is the height of irony that the U.S.D.A. is now trying to blame the whistle-blower for the agency's own irresponsible behavior"

Irony? What about Stupidity? Idiocy? Arrogance?

Where's Mark Morford of SF (see Scabrous Lizards and Nubile Virgins) when we need his language?

Meanwhile, Steve Mendell, president of the Chino meat-packing plant, did not show up at the Capitol hearing. He professes to be "shocked and horrified" by the revelations. He does not face any charges.

Why don't we all write him at: info@westlandmeat.com

Or how about writing to House Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman John Dingell, asking him to compel Mr Mendell to testify? email him via this, or hurry up and snail-mail him at:

2328 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4071

The Candidates and the Climate

Not that I would change my eventual presidential vote based on this story in Big Green Purse, but it shows some stark differences between the two parties' candidate's records on environmental issues. Only one guess as to which party was considered environmentally more sound:

The League of Conservation Voters releases a voting scorecard that rates all members of the House and Senate in every Congressional session. In the109th Congress (2005-2006),  Barack Obama voted to protect the environment 96% of the time; Hillary Clinton did so 89% of the time. So far in the 110th Congress, Obama has supported the environment 67% of the time, while Hillary has a 73% favorable rating (both of the candidates missed several votes, presumably while they were out campaigning, which counts against them in the tally).

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain racked up a mere 41% positive approval rating in the 109th Congress; so far, in the 110th, he's got zero. That's right: in 2007 on no issue did he vote to protect the environment, according to the LCV scorecard. So the choice between the candidates -- or at least between the parties the candidates represent -- is very clear.

But apparently none of the candidates are talking about Clean Air, Clean Water and Cleaning up our toxic sites. But this may be simplifying things by focusing on very specific issues sure to glaze over the eyes of voters in this endless campaign and,  lest we forget, in the 9 months ahead. Barack Obama, for instance, in a television ad declares "the planet is in peril." That does not seem equivocal on a broad policy level at all.

And on a broad "reduce-the-emissions" level, all three of the candidates are on the same page.

McCain, somewhat contradicting  the image above,does support a cap-and-trade system for carbon, as do the Democratic candidates, who support a cap-and-trade goal of reducing emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. McCain is also coauthor of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, which would cap emissions from utilities, industry, and transport at 2004 levels by 2012 and then gradually decrease emissions to about 30% of 2004 levels by 2050.

Cleanly Green

Cleaning products are a major problem in most households, not the least because there are so many of them. Product marketing has successfully suggested to most of us that a blue-tinged fluid is better than the cheaper and less toxic household vinegar, or that baking soda should be replaced by deodorants of unknown provenance, etc., etc.

"Green" cleaning products have existed for a while: one well known brand is SImple Green, whose corporate goal is to be "a socially responsible company, are committed to being worldwide market leaders providing quality, environmentally safe, cleaning products."

The largest company selling green cleaners is Seventh Generation, whose president, Jeffrey Hollender is a fluid speaker and writer on his website, which includes a "Guide to a Toxin-Free HOme."

Enter the 900-pound gorilla: Clorox, with their new Greenworks brand of cleaning products. While the initial reaction may be a visceral one against large corporations, Joel Makower, for one, is reasonably positive:

What I found was that the company — whose brands include [recently] Burt's Bees personal care products — had a relatively blank slate from an environmental perspective. It did not have any significant  skeletons. It enjoyed a solid compliance record, has joined several voluntary programs to reduce waste and emissions, and has received modest recognition for its performance. Except for concerns about bleach, it has been largely off activists' radar. From an environmental perspective, it was neither a leader nor a laggard.

So this may not be a case of greenwashing at all. And the Sierra Club has approved the use of their logo in return for a portion of the profits. Clorox seems sure of success...it lists the ingredients on the label, apparaently something that manufacturers don't normally come clean about cleaners.

Eat More Salad, Spend More Money

Celsias has this neat image titled "Why Should a Salad Cost More Than a Big Mac?"...graphically pointing out that Federal subsidies are heavily directed towards meat production, whereas Federal guidelines on nutrition suggest eating more non-meat products.

[Note: Figures are correct, but visual representation is not to scale]

My wife Elizabeth and I often talk about why we are not vegetarians. For myself, I grew up as one, eating my first chicken at 16. It would be hard for either of us to stop eating meat even though we principally eat fish and only organic meat.

The article also refers to the recent Hallmark Meats incident, where diseased and ill cattle were moved forcibly towards slaughter...if you can stomach it (put not intended,) see the horrible video here.

The question is, if compassionate, animal-loving people see this video, how can they continue to support factory farming?

The More You Know...

Is  too much information bad for you?

If you've ever lived or visited the Golden State, you may have noticed there's a vast proliferation of signs everywhere which more or less state "this establishment uses [something] known to the State of California as a carcinogen." Which was a result of none of these Propositions (65) passed by the voters making it mandatory to post such a sign even if a trace of the bad chemical was present. Say, in glass cleaner.

While too many signs may turn the average person off (what is one supposed to do, anyway, stay at home? oh there's plenty of "known chemicals" even there,) some signage is good. In food for example.

California citizens sued various grocery stores alleging the stores violated California’s Sherman Law labeling requirements by selling artificially colored farmed salmon without labeling it as ‘color added’ as required by law.

Attorney Kevin Golden of the Center for Food Safety (which filed a Friend of the Court brief in this case) said, “We applaud the California Supreme Court’s ruling.  At issue is whether the people of California have the right to know what’s in their food. California citizens’ right to enforce California food safety law, where the federal government is failing to do its job, has been vindicated.”

These dyes have been linked to several human health problems, including impaired vision and retinal damage, cancer, and hyperactivity in young children.

Why would grocery stores object to labeling? All it does is increase the perception that there's something bad in the food that they don't want you to know about.

It reminds one of the Pennsylvania Sec'y of Agriculture claiming late last year that labeling milk "hormone free" would "confuse consumers." Luckily the storm of protest on that one made the Governor rethink the ban.

 

Save our Wolves

From savewolves.org, this plea:

Wolves At Risk The Bush/Cheney Administration may be just hours away from eliminating vital protections for endangered wolves! Please call the Department of Interior before 8 PM Eastern Time or first thing tomorrow morning at 1-800-344-WILD (9453) and let agency officials know that you want these wolves to remain protected. Speak out and be counted! Fill out this survey to report your call. As soon as tomorrow, Interior Secretary Kempthorne is expected to announce the elimination of federal protections for hundreds of endangered wolves in Greater Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies. Please take a moment right now to call the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at 1-800-344-WILD (9453) and deliver this simple message: “My name is [...] and I’m calling from [....]I understand that the federal government may remove wolves in the Greater Yellowstone and Central Idaho regions tomorrow from the list of federally protected threatened and endangered species. I want your department to know that I strongly oppose the weakening of protections for these wolves and expect you to fulfill your obligation to secure a lasting future in the Northern Rockies for these amazing animals.” The lives of hundreds of wolves are at stake. Please call tonight before 8 PM Eastern Time or first thing tomorrow morning. In a matter of hours, newspapers across the country could be reporting on the Bush/Cheney Administration's expected announcement … and its potentially devastating impact on some of America’s most beloved wolves. But today I need your help to let these federal officials know that Americans love our wolves and want to see them protected. Please call the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at 1-800-344-WILD (9453) and speak out for our wolves. Leave a message if you can, and remember to let us know that you called.

Carbon Dieting

Carbon footprints are everywhere. On the news and the Net, that is. From the development of zero-carbon-footprint houses in England to the use of carbon offsets to alleviate your guilt when you've been bad, carbon-wise, there's plenty to read. But here's the Church of England getting into the act (from the Guardian):

Carbon-Lite Lent

The Church of England is urg[ed] people to cut down on carbon, rather than chocolate, for Lent this year.  Two senior bishops within the church are joining with development agency Tearfund in calling for a cut in personal carbon use for each of the 40 days of Lent, which begins tomorrow.

The 40-day plan lists simple energy-saving actions that can lead towards a lighter carbon footprint, including snubbing plastic bags, giving the dishwasher a day off, insulating the hot-water tank and checking the house for drafts. Participants are asked to begin the carbon fast by removing one light bulb from a prominent place in the home and live without it for 40 days, as a constant visual reminder during Lent of the need to cut energy. On the final day of the fast, people are encouraged to replace the missing bulb with an energy-saving bulb.

Branson Lite

Richard Branson of Virgin Group is the sponsor of Earth Hour---when cities around the world will shut off or dim their lights (individuals are urged to do so too,) on March 29th. But Branson, who necessarily jets around constantly, is being criticized for his carbon profligacy, in spite of, or perhaps because of, his support for environmental causes (an alliance with Al Gore, using renewable energy and fuel sources in his personal residences, etc.) So he's right when he says:

"I think it's impractical to start talking about people not being able to fly. What we need to do is come up with a technological solution to flying which is to come up with a clean fuel so people can carry on flying but not actually damaging the environment and that's what we're trying to do."

To calculate your carbon footprint, try this one from the Nature Conservancy:.

Black Gold Falling

A significant amount of US electricity is still generated by coal-burning plants. Which are about the most polluting method of doing so ever invented. However, coal may be on the slide.

The CO² emission from coal plants can be captured (sequestered) and pumped underground;  the US Department of Energy says "Clean coal technology is a vital component of the Bush Administration's vision for a cleaner, more secure energy future and this more cost-effective approach will demonstrate IGCC-CCS clean coal technology to enable wider use and commercialization more rapidly."

The fact that not too many non-industry people would agree with this statement is about normal  for Mr. Bush's consensus building strategy. Notable, Barack Obama, among other Illinois law makers seems to be for the oxymoronic "clean coal" strategy, an epithet used even by the Wall Street Journal.

From Lester Brown, environmentalist; via planetark:

Wall Street, politicians and public opinion have all turned so dramatically against coal in the last year over climate concerns that it is probably "the beginning of the end of the coal industry," said Lester Brown. "Carbon sequestration has been something the coal industry has leaned on to avoid facing the full force of the climate concerns and will probably not be a viable option," said Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, a nonprofit environmental organization.

"This appears to be the kiss of death for the industry," Brown said, especially if a national moratorium on coal-fired plants is passed by Congress. .

Texas has been in the forefront of the coal industry's attempts to build new coal fired generating plants, but even in that free-wheeling state, environmental groups "convinced Texas-based utility TXU to reduce the number of planned coal-fired power plants in Texas from 11 to 3. And now even those 3 proposed plants may be challenged [Celsias]."

London vs Paris Cycling Wars

London has never seemed as progressive as it does now; under mayor Ken Livingstone, all kinds of policies are in effect that we can only dream of here. He instituted a strong congestion tax, which just is proposed to go to almost $48 (!) for a "Chelsea Tractor" (British for large SUV,) an action that is pretty much unthinkable in these parts, making Mayor Bloomberg's proposed $8 congestion charge seem anemic.

Actually the proposed rise may be bad for New York...it's being used by congestion charge opponents as fodder for their claim that the charge will inevitably rise over time.

Now this story from the Guardian shows how serious London is about cycling:

London will adopt a bicycle hire scheme similar to a popular initiative in Paris under a $1 billion cycling investment package announced by the mayor on Monday.

Under the plan, part of a series of environmental measures due in coming days, 6,000 bicycles will be available for hire from ranks every 300 metres (600 feet) throughout the city centre.London, which accounts for seven percent of Britain's climate changing carbon emissions and is at the forefront of efforts by major cities around the world to combat global warming, plans to cut carbon emissions by 60 percent by 2025.

The Paris bike scheme lets riders with an electronic card take a bike from one rank and return it at another rank anywhere in the city. It has proven popular, transforming traffic in the French capital since it came into operation last July.

The bikes will not be of the stylish Parisian breed shown above; says London Assembly member Jenny Jones: “They are a little bit grannyish, with a basket and mudguards, and a strong frame, so they are not very attractive to steal. We want to encourage the view of bicycles as a tool rather than a fashion accessory. We intend the parking stands to be in well-lit, very public places so the risk of the bikes being abused is minimised.”

In other words, check your spandex before you rent one of them...