I'm Seeing Green

Get off the plane!

You may not yet have heard: "Air travel is becoming as controversial as wearing a fur coat or smoking while pregnant."

This is once again an avenue of environmental extremism. Since those "opposed" to air travel presumably are not suggesting a return to the middle ages, the message is mixed at best. Instead of attacking mass-travel airlines, which have the best emissions-per-mile record, the criticism should be leveled against individualized or business jets, which are clearly more of a menace. And their numbers are growing.

In the Guardian, Tom Robbins reports:

Thousands of activists are expected to descend on Heathrow for the Camp for Climate Action from 14 to 21 August. There will be workshops on issues from carbon offsetting and biofuels to campaign strategy and skills for direct action, and the week will climax with a day when demonstrators will try to disrupt the airport as much as possible.

I don't count myself in this category, but I guess guilt can trump most anything:

Even those who fly once or twice a year on holiday can't help but feel a growing sense of guilt, while those opting for trips by car, train or ferry have a self-righteous spring in their steps.

Now, however, the backlash is beginning. The tourism and aviation industries are mobilising, setting up lobbying groups, and pointing out some awkward facts. Did you know, for example, that some ferries emit far more carbon dioxide than some planes? That driving can release twice as much carbon as flying? .... And at last month's Paris Airshow, Airbus bosses unveiled their own, very different, solution to climate change - promising to 'save the planet, one A380 at a time'. That's A380, as in the vast double-decker airliner about to enter service. So who do you believe?

Well, so cars with a full passenger load are better than planes, and trains are the best of the three. Trains are a good option for much of Europe, and we certainly need to improve our trains significantly here in the US, but many countries are simply too large to not use air travel.

But in the real world, with the US and the developing world demanding thousands of new planes, surely we have to take a more sophisticated approach: to choose airlines with greener, newer fleets, and thus encourage plane makers to prioritise environmental performance; to travel to destinations that help local communities rather than destroy them; to take the train where possible...

Green News

World wide action against Climate Change:

It is organized by the Alliance pour la planète, a French-based umbrella organization of several environmental associations. All you have to do is turn out all your lights for 5 minutes, February 1st, between 7:55pm and 8:00pm. This action is basically destined to attract media attention, as well as to create awareness amongst the population and the decision makers. The idea is to show political leaders and candidates that Climate Change is an issue which is on the forefront of citizens concerns for 2007.

Why February 1st? On that day, the United Nations will publish their new report on Climate Change.

Air-freighted food may lose organic label:  from the Guardian: Is organic food "organic" if it's flown from a thousand miles away? Yes if you consider only its healthfulness, but if low environmental impact is part of being organic, maybe no. A week ago, I mentioned Giles Cohen, the British restaurant critic who rates organic food postitively and hands out demerits if served imported bottled water. Along the same lines, the curiously named Soil Association (oh, them droll British! It's the "UK's leading environmental charity promoting sustainable, organic farming and championing human health," ) goes along:

Food imported to the UK by air may be denied the lucrative "organic" label under proposals being put forward today by the Soil Association.

The UK's main organic certification body is concerned about the "food miles" involved in importing goods by air, which, environmentalists argue, contribute to global warming.

Supermarkets typically charge more for food labelled organic and many customers are increasingly favouring goods which have not been treated with pesticides and other chemicals.

California Air Regulators Enact First U.S. Statewide Ban on Dry-Cleaning Chemicals: The story is that dry-cleaning utilizes a very toxic chemical, perchloroethylene, which also contaminates soil (which is why setting up in a former dry-cleaners is an expensive clean up.) There is more environmentally friendly dry-cleaning, but not widely available.

In New York, there's Green Apple Dry Cleaners who use CO² based cleaning, and pick-up and deliver!

California regulators have enacted the United States' first statewide ban on the most common chemical used by dry cleaners, pleasing environmentalists but worrying some small businesses.

By 2023, no more dry-cleaning machines that use the toxic solvent perchloroethylene, a potential carcinogen, will be permitted in the state.

The regulation by the California Air Resources Board will phase out the fluid next year, banning dry cleaners from buying machines that rely on the solvent. The state's 3,400 dry cleaners who now use it must get rid of machines that are 15 years or older by July 2010.

"Dry cleaners have known this is a problem for quite some time," board member Dorene D'Adamo said. "There is a cost to society, and believe me, taxpayers are paying for it."

Warming to Raise Seas for 1,000 Years: Alister Doyle, story

World sea levels will keep rising for more than 1,000 years even if governments manage to slow a projected surge in temperatures this century blamed on greenhouse gases, a draft U.N. climate report says.

The study, by a panel of 2,500 scientists who advise the United Nations, also says that dust from volcanic eruptions and air pollution seems to have braked warming in recent decades by reflecting sunlight back into space, scientific sources said. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will publish its report, the most complete overview of climate change science, in Paris on Feb. 2 after a final review. It will guide policy makers combating global warming.

What I did This Fall

We went on a trip to the Berkshires and lower Vermont last weekend, figuring it was a good time to see the foliage up north. We dumped the little D with friends in Canton CT for the two-and-a-half days we were away, quite beyond the call of duty (thank you, H & F!)

So he had a great time. He tired out our friends'  large, friendly dog who would endlessly play tug-of-war with him. He ran around their 20- (or is it 30-) acre property, complete with stream and koi pond, and is now suggesting that maybe he likes the "country" better than the city (over my dead body, I reply) and points out that New York, in spite of its attractions, is "dirty." So is the country, I say, there's dirt there; and bugs and ticks-- this last resonated with him as he acquired one in his ear from the dog. This is the kid who, when we were in Eugene, OR for a couple of years, would prefer to sit on a parking lot carstop rather than wander the verdant fields of the University of Oregon. How the mighty have fallen.

We were more worried about our friends than the D, who has, ever since he was a teeny baby, been quite comfortable with being away from his parents. He practically begs us to get a baby sitter every now and then. The first time he was away from us, at 2-1/2, in Los Angeles with his aunt while we researched Park Slope houses, we called him as soon as we got to NY; his reaction when told that Mom was on the phone? "I'll talk to them later (sub-text: I'm busy)."

Coming as we do from California, and still getting used to the seasonal changes, our trip was quite enjoyable. We drove up towards Middlebury, Maine, stopping the first night at a "resort", the only place we could get a room (well, not a room but an apartment that would be be envy of the average Manhattanite.)

On the way we visited the Edith Wharton summer "getaway" (it's more like a castle) with its partially restored rooms and beautiful gardens. Quite a spectacle, and made me appreciate why Wharton wrote about the milieu she did; she was squarely one of them.

The second night we stayed at the Chipman Inn in Ripton, Vermont...quite pleasant, and Joyce the innkeeper was quite the mystery fan and we had interesting conversations about various writers. That, to me, is the joy of staying in small hotels or B&B's, you never know who you might meet or what they're interested in.

Several small towns we visited were what I consider small towns should be--not completely given over to the tourist trade (though I suspect these actually were very dependent on tourists), old fashioned charm and walkable. Middlebury certainly filled this bill--the picture here is from an old building that's cantilevered over a 19th century bridge over the river that flows thought the center of town.

Bennington and Williamstown (MA), were equally charming. We visited the Williams College Art Museum there, a small but eclectic collection that spans the art gamut from ancient to modern. A particularly nice installation was "Urban Landscape" by Zhan Wang, just the right touch of whimsy for me.

Back to "dirty" Brooklyn. Dylan's comments made me actually realize how true this is. And it's not just the sheer density of our urban landscape, which does contribute to the mess. But Brownstone Brooklyn could be much cleaner and prettier (flower boxes?) pick up the trash, maybe?

And the first time I called a store back here and get the "whattya want" syndrome, I realize how friendly people are in the small towns. Our waiter at the great restaraunt Marie and Tulley's in Middlebury was so helpful it seemed downright spooky - what drug's he on?

Oh well, I do still love (really) New York!