Earth Friendly Shopping

Scientist at NASA Goddard Institute released a study showing that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000.

We can almost hear the skeptics and deniers jumping out of their skin with enthusiasm at the “proof” that global warming doesn’t really exist.

So, it is important to know that while 2008 was the coolest year since 2000 (and not just because Obama got elected)  it was also the 9th warmest year since 1880.   And, the ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008.

When you look at the data, you can see that the Earth has been warming steadily, and in spite of a slight downturn in 2008, the planet is warmer by comparison

All of this is even more scary when you realize that solar activity is actually down right now.

When solar irradiance goes back up, it is could get much hotter.  – So, when you hear a global warming denier start in about how 2008 reversed the trend, be ready.  No, it didn’t.  2008, while cooler than other years in the decade was still a hot year.

We’ve been talking about Greenwashing recently, but as usual, no one says it better than Colbert

Proclaiming yourself green is all the rage.  Consumers throughout the world are becoming conscious of the consequences of each choice, and many are striving to make choices that reduce environmental impact.

Of course the easy thing for companies and industries to do is to mount a marketing campaign that makes them look green.  It is, after all easier to to this than it is to actually change your practices so you are green,

Recently, we came across this kind of greenwashing at There are Two Sides to Paper 

This site is put together by the National Association of Paper Merchants, a UK trade group, although it seems as though they are trying to hide that fact.   They only list NAPM as the source, and it took a little sluething on my part to find out who the NAPM is.

Now, there is nothing wrong with a trade group promoting the agenda of their members, or trying their best to put a positive spin on their industry, but the fact that they are hiding who they sets off my BS detector.

The goal of the TwoSides campaign is

to address these criticisms, to educate the paper-buying public of the true facts so they can make informed choices, while at the same time, promote responsible paper use.

Promoting responsible paper use is good, but some of the “true facts” they want to use to “educate” the public are iffy at best.   Two sides lists 6 myths, and then presents counter arguments.

For example, Myth 5 is “Recycled Paper is always better for the environment than virgin paper”  They counter

Modern paper mills producing virgin fibre paper, whose energy source is nuclear, hydro or internally bio-fuelled, may well have a lower carbon footprint than a mill making recycled paper, powered by fossil fuels.

Talk about a misleading argument.  How about a virgin paper mill using fossil fuels vs a recycling mill? How can you compare the two?    Besides, if you see two reams of paper, one is virgin and the other high post consumer recycled, are you supposed to try to find out what kind of fuel powered the manufacturing plant?  How can you do that?

In addition, their analysis just barely mentions that when paper is not recycled, it can end up in landfills.

Plus they point out that without virgin paper at some point, you couldn’t have recycled paper.  Fine, make that argument when we are recycling as close to 100 percent of our paper as possible

Another example    Myth 1 “Making Paper Destroys forests”

They counter, no, in fact the opposite is true.  But their facts are sketchy.  For example, they cite the Forest Stewardship Council (I guess, they just say FSC  – could be the Flying Sausage Council

‘Almost half of the timber harvested from the world’s forests is used to make paper products, so the paper industry has a huge opportunity to make sure that those forests are responsibly managed and will be here for generations to come’

OK, they have the opportunity, are they doing it?

In managed forests, for every tree cut down, three to four are replanted in its place.

Great, except for two things – 1) even three or four young trees don’t really compensate for the one mature tree cut down, and won’t for many years.  and 2) they make no mention of the percentage of paper that comes from managed forests.

Managed forests are better than clear cut.  For new paper, absolutely we want to see responsibly managed forests and replantingm but over all, we go with the basic common sense approach

Reduce – cut your use of paper down as much as possible

Reuse, – a little more difficult, but try to use both sides of each sheet

Recycle – and when you can, use recycled paper

Scientific American is reporting on Iceland’s efforts to become the geothermal capital of the world.

 Iceland Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has said the country still has two valuable natural resources that could help it climb out of the current crisis—fish and renewable energy. Many believe the country’s fishing stocks may already be overtaxed, however, and the vast swathes of land required to build additional hydropower dams in Iceland make them politically unpopular. That makes the exploitation of the thousands of megawatts of untapped geothermal power lying just beneath the feet of Iceland’s citizens very appealing.

There are difficulties with this plan.  Financing is almost impossible  and no one is really sure who will buy the power.  Aluminum smelters are a possibility, but they have sever environemntal impacts.

But the basic thrust of it, strikes me as an appropriate way forward for all of us.  Just as Iceland was partying on foreign capital, and is now trying to revive using more sustainable approaches,  all of us need to develop more sustainable ways of living well.

Our new way forward needs to be based on renewable resources and energies, and on reducing our use of resources

Reusable shopping bags are all the rage. Totes of all shapes, styles and sizes are popping up every day, and while they are a much more sensible alternative to traditional plastic or paper shopping bags, they still deserve the same discerning environmental eye that we use to evaluate conventional products.

Recently, I was asked to use and review a new brand of bag, cleverly called Waste-Less Bags TM: see my thoughts below and decide for yourself whether they live up to their name.

Less is More

The first thing I noticed about the Waste-Less Bags is that, instead of “less” bags, there are actually more. Three rolled shopping bags came in a “carrying pouch” which is actually another smaller bag. This carrying pouch is supposed to make it easier to keep track of the multiple bags within it, but to me it just looked like needless extra material.

Location, Location…and Materials

Attached to the “carrying pouch” is a tag with the bags’ stats, and although designed in the U.S., I was surprised to see the bags were made in China. Aside from China’s atrocious environmental policies, a long history of disregard for human rights, and poor labor conditions, this means these “affordable, attractive and easy-to-use” bags made a 12,000 mile journey before ending up at my doorstep (producing who-knows-how-many pounds of carbon). With so many U.S. made (and even DIY) options for reusable bags, I was extremely unimpressed with this aspect.

The same tag also boasted that the bags are made from 100% polyester. Although on it’s web site the company criticizes its “canvas or polypropylene” competitors for being “cumbersome and inefficient,” it neglects to inform consumers that polyester (better known as polyethylene terephthalate or PET) is chock full of toxic chemicals that can harm the planet and your skin, not to mention taking thousands of years to biodegrade.

(Also: before even using one of the bags I noticed that a seam was already torn. So much for being “Strong & Durable”).

User Un-Friendly

The shopping bags came neatly rolled and tucked into the “carrying pouch,” but of course the first thing I did was unroll one…and then tried to re-roll it. Getting it back to it’s original size and shape (so that it could be conveniently “carried” in its “pouch”) was almost impossible. Then I noticed that the flip side of the very informative tag also included 3-step directions for how to correctly re-roll the bags. A shopping bag with instructions?!  Talk about making things more complicated than they need to be.

Size Does Matter

One of the only positive things I can say about this product is that they are bigger than many of the original styles of reusable bags, making it easier to fit more items into one bag. And it had a carrying strap that made carrying a full bag over your shoulder pretty easy.

The Verdict

Although the hearts of the Waste-Less Bags creators are probably in the right place, there are too many companies out there trying to make a quick buck in the green scene without taking the time to do their homework and learn what it truly means to be sustainable. And that just gives the whole movement a bad name.

Contact Waste-Less Bags at info@waste-less.com

(This article originally posted at the GenGreenLife Blog)

If you’ve watched any TV in the past 6 months, you’ve probably seen those ludicrous ads put out by the Corn Refiners Association. If not, give this one a whirl so you can be properly indignant about what I’m going to tell you next.

High Fructose Corn Syrup Ad 1

Spluttering for a logical response to that propaganda? Excellent. Now try this news on for size.

On Monday, January 26, the scientific journal Environmental Health published the results of two (not one, but TWO) studies conducted by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. The study tested high fructose corn syrup and found that “almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient.”

“Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply,” said the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy’s Dr. David Wallinga, a co-author of both studies.

That’s right folks, we no longer have the luxury of being poisioned only by salmon and peanut butter. Now, literally hundreds, even thousands, of the prepared products we unfortunately consume every day are silently poisioning us as well.

Of course a rubuttal was immediately posted on the Corn Refiners Association’s official campaign website.

“This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance. Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years. These mercury-free re-agents perform important functions, including adjusting pH balances,” stated Audrae Erickson, President, Corn Refiners Association. “For more than 150 years, corn wet millers have been perfecting the process of refining corn to make safe ingredients for the American food supply.”

Somehow, I highly doubt that an “Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of environmental and occupational medicine, and related studies in toxicology and epidemiology” would risk it’s reputation by publishing an article with “outdated” and “dubious” information. Of course, it’s happened before, but I’m sceptical.

According to an article in the Washington Post, “in the second study, the agriculture group [IATP] found that nearly one in three of 55 brand-name foods contained mercury. The chemical was most common in HFCS-containing dairy products, dressings and condiments.”

And the real sucker punch of it all? “The bad news is that nobody knows whether or not their soda or snack food contains HFCS made from ingredients like caustic soda contaminated with mercury. The good news is that mercury-free HFCS ingredients exist. Food companies just need a good push to only use those ingredients,” Wallinga said.

This is why environmentalists support local, sustainable, ORGANIC agriculture. This is why we urge you to grow your own food. This is why we oppose genetically modified foods and the big, untouchable corporations that are sneakily poisoning the earth, the water and OUR CHILDREN by producing these foods. It’s because such atrocities are committed with no thought of the health and well being of the American people, and because these corporations are encouraged to behave in this manner by government subsidies and by YOU when you buy these products. Remember: you are what you eat!

(This article originally published on the GenGreen Life Blog)

Tree deaths in the Western U.S. have increased dramatically in the past several decades.  That’s the conclusion of a new study led by scientists with the U.S. Geological survey, and published in the journal Science.

“The same way that in any group of people a small number will die each year, in any forest a small number of trees die each year,” said van Mantgem. “But our long-term monitoring shows that tree mortality has been climbing, while the establishment of replacement trees has not.”

The result is that forests have begun to lose trees faster than they are gaining them, said van Mantgem, a research ecologist with the USGS Redwood Field Station in Arcata, California.

The study concluded that rising temperatures are the most likely cause of the mortality

“Average temperature in the West rose by more than 1° F over the last few decades,” said van Mantgem. “While this may not sound like much, it has been enough to reduce winter snowpack, cause earlier snowmelt, and lengthen the summer drought.”

The lengthening summer drought could be stressing trees, leading to higher death rates, he said. Warmer temperatures also might favor insects and diseases that attack trees. Some recent outbreaks of tree-killing bark beetles in the West have already been linked to warming temperatures.

These forests are huge carbon sinks.  As the forests die, the they are releasing carbon, potentially increasing the rate of warming.  In addition, the forests are far more vulnerable to other stresses, and sudden death of large forest areas are increasingly possible

That’s the question asked by More than Pretty Knickers - a website and film that draws attention to the environmental issues and abusive labor practices prevalent in today’s fashion industry.  Hat tip to Green LA    Warning this video is NSFW