By Kenneth Barbalace

At the Frankfurt Motor Show, Toyota unveiled a plug-in hybrid version of its popular Toyota Prius. This concept car is based on the third generation Prius and uses first generation lithium-ion batteries. Read more at http://behindthewheelnews.toyota.com/?id=252

By Kenneth Barbalace

It is the season to start vegetable garden in the northern hemisphere and organic gardening is all the rage. As I've been planning and working on our garden I've been pondering the merits and limits of organic gardening. Something I've been thinking about is whether organic gardening is necessarily eco friendly gardening. To be an "orthodox" organic garden, one must use: certified organic everything (seeds, compost, etc.) and one must forego chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc. I'm totally into the foregoing chemicals bit, but I'm not sold that buying organically certified everything is necessarily eco friendlier.

For instance, I bought my seeds from a local nursery, who buys them wholesale from a company that produces them locally here in Maine. For all tense and purposes, the seeds are heirloom seeds because the company has been cultivating their own varieties of seeds for around 100 years, however, they are not certified organic. From the seed producer to my local nursery, to my garden these seeds probably traveled no more than 50 miles. On the other hand, I don't know where the certified organic seeds came from. They could have come from hundreds of miles away and may not even be fully adapted for our local climate. Are seeds that have to be trucked hundreds of miles to me and aren't optimized for my local climate truly more eco friendly than locally produced heirloom seeds?

Compost is another example; I had my local nursery deliver three cubic yards of compost for my garden, which they get from local producers (lots of dairy farms and horse stables in the area). Again it isn't certified organic, but the nose can certainly tell what some of the key ingredients are. Is certified organic compost that would have come from a long distance away really more eco friendly than using locally produced compost?

When we look at growing our gardens, I just can't help but think that obsessing about buying everything certified organic isn't missing the forest through the trees. If we are trying to be better for the environment, don't we also want to cut down the transportation footprint of the stuff we buy for our gardens? Shouldn't we also be buying seeds that are optimized for our own local climates so that they can do well with minimal care?

By Kenneth Barbalace

Recently, I noticed my Senator, Susan Collins (Maine, Republican), had introduced a bill called the "Energy Assistance Fund Act" (S.855) whose purpose is to help make the U.S. more energy independent by improving the energy efficiency of homes via weatherization (a really big issue here in Maine) and providing tax credits for consumers to invest in renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, etc. for their homes. What really impressed me about this legislation is that it addresses several issues in a very effective manner. By providing money to weatherize homes and tax credits for home based renewable energy consumers the bill will:

1. Result in immediate savings for families due to reduced energy costs, which will be a big help to many households in these tough economic times.
2. Improve our nation's energy security by reducing our need for imported energy.
3. Help reduce our nation's carbon footprint by reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn.
4. Help stimulate the economy by creating thousands, if not tens of thousands of jobs weatherizing homes and installing renewable energy systems in homes.

When we look at investments into renewable energy and spending tax dollars on economic stimulus, the most effective place to spend that money is at the individual home owner level via tax rebates, low interest loans, etc. because the money would almost immediately get pumped back into the economy creating a demand for related goods and services. Furthermore as a nation the impact on our energy needs would be almost immediate as every home that gets properly weatherized will see a very significant reduction in energy consumption (maybe around 40% on average). The money consumers save from the reduced energy consumption could be then spent on other household needs.

Unlike this bill cosponsored by Senator Collins, typical energy bills target big industry, pie in the sky projects that do little to help the individual consumer's energy costs. Furthermore, the projects funded by typical energy bills take years to to reach fruition and oftentimes turn out to be boondoggles that provide very little return on investment.

It is very heartening to see legislation that ties economic stimulus, energy security, household energy efficiency, sustainability and reducing our nation's carbon footprint into such a tidy common sense approach. This bill will rely on trickle up from the consumer instead of empty promises of trickle down from industry.

One thing I love about living in a state with a small population base like Maine is that our Senator's are so much more accessible. A couple weeks ago I wrote Senator Collins about her bill and this is the response I got back today. Even when I disagree with my Senators, which isn't uncommon, I appreciate the fact that they take time to respond to my letters. Here is Senator Collin's response to my inquiry:

Dear Mr. Barbalace:

Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation's energy policy and for including information about your website. I appreciate your interest in environmental issues.

I noted your support for my legislation, S. 855. In a bipartisan effort to help Americans overcome the challenge of our dependence on foreign oil and restore and strengthen our nation's economy, I introduced the "Energy Assistance Fund Act" on April 22, 2009, along with my colleague Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). This legislation, introduced on Earth Day, would assist people who want to invest in energy conservation and alternative energy technologies and help set the nation on a path toward energy independence by providing additional loan authority to support current federal programs that help families and small businesses finance energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. This bill has not yet passed Congress. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where it awaits further consideration. I have attached a copy of the bill and a summary of it for your review.

I also have supported legislation to provide tax credits for consumers to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency efforts like solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources in both new and existing homes. These renewable energy production tax credits have been extended through 2012, as part of the economic stimulus package. Also included in the package was $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program. For the latest Maine funding updates, I suggest that you visit the website: www.maine.gov/recovery/ For further information on renewable energy job certification, I suggest that you visit: http://www.efficiencymaine.com/certifications.htm

I remain committed to working to advance effective energy and environmental legislation that increases America's supply of energy and decreases our demand for foreign oil, which will help us to achieve energy independence and to stabilize gas and oil prices. As the Senate continues to consider energy legislation, I will work to advance these objectives and will continue to support policies that benefit Maine families.

Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Susan Collins
United States Senator

No bill can get passed without support so please take some time and write your senators and encourage them to support this bill. This bill does have bipartisan support. It will help stimulate our economy, it will help reduce our dependence on foreign energy (e.g. oil), and is good for the environment.

Download text of S.855 (pdf)

By Kenneth Barbalace

Once again Apple ranked dead last on an environmental organization's survey of electronics manufacturers. One year ago (April 2007), Green Peace ranked Apple dead last on their survey of electronics companies because of Apple's secretiveness about their environmental practices and their failure to disclose measures they were taking to remove hazardous chemicals from their manufacturing processes. This time around, the environmental organization Climate Counts (ClimateCounts.org), which focuses on climate change issues, ranked Apple last among electronics companies survey with a score of 11 out of a possible 100.

Apple has worked hard over the years to cultivate an image of being cool, trendy and better than the rest. As such, I'm stunned at how badly they keep scoring on environmental surveys. I would have expected Apple to embrace being environmentally and socially responsible as key aspects of cultivating a "cool mystique". After all, their key demographic base tends to be very progressive on these issues. Maybe Steve Jobs hopes that consumers will keep drinking the Apple cool-aid and not question how socially and/or environmentally responsible Apple really is.

This day in age being a cool/hip company is more than product marketing and design, it also requires being socially and environmentally responsible. Apple should be consistently showing up at the top of these environmental surveys, not at the bottom well below "less cool" companies like Microsoft. Maybe Steve Jobs needs the legions of Apple fans to stand up and demand that Apple become an environmental and social leader before he comes around on these issues. Please, if you are a consumer of Apple's products, stand up and let Steve Jobs know that you expect more out of his company than just the next must have electronic gizmo with batteries that die after two years. Tell him that as a consumer, the environment really does matter.

What the Climate Counts survey evaluated

The Climate Counts survey looked what some of the worlds largest consumer companies are doing to:

• reduce emissions in their production processes;
• make products that require less energy;
• take back products that are obsolete and turning them into the next big thing;
• measure their own climate "footprint";
• reduce their impact on global warming;
• support or block climate legislation;
• publically disclose their climate actions clearly and comprehensibly.

How other technology companies scored

The number one electronics company on Climate Counts' list was IBM (77 out of 100) followed by Canon (74/100) and Toshiba (70/100) rounding out the top three. Other notable technology companies reviewed by Climate Counts included: Google, which scored 55 out of 100; Microsoft, which scored better than Apple, but was still less than stellar at 38 out of 100.

The ten highest scoring companies on Climate Counts' list

1. Nike (apparel/accessories): 82/100
2. Stonyfield Farm (food products): 78/100
3. IBM (electronics): 77/100
4. Unilever (food products): 75/100
5. Canon (electronics): 74/100
6. General Electric (Media): 71/100
7. Toshiba (electronics): 70/100
8. Procter & Gamble (household products): 69/100
9. Hewlett-Packard (electronics):68/100
10. Sony (electronics): 68/100

The ten lowest scoring companies on Climate Counts' list

1. Wendy's international (food services): 0/100
2. Jones Apparel Group (apparel/accessories): 0/100
3. Darden Restaurants (food services): 0/100
4. Burger King (food services): 0/100
5. Yum! Brands (food services): 1/100
6. Viacom (media): 4/100
7. VF Corporation (apparel/accessories): 4/100
8. eBay (Internet/software): 5/100
9. Amazon.com (Internet/software): 5/100
10. Apple (electronics): 11/100

By Kenneth Barbalace

Autism, ADHD, learning disabilities, developmental delays and intellectual retardation are among the neurodevelopmental disorders that extract an enormous emotional, mental and financial toll in terms of compromised quality of life and lifelong disability. Additionally, these require special education, psychological and medical support services that drain resources and contribute to further stress on the families and communities. While it is generally accepted that the cause for these disabilities is likely to include genetic and environmental factors, for a vast majority of these disabilities, the cause remains unknown.

Many factors contribute in complex ways to brain development. These include gene expression, heredity, socioeconomic factors, stress, drugs, nutrition and chemical contaminants. Brain development is a long, complicated process involving cell proliferation, migration, differentiation and cell death (apoptosis). There are multiple ways by which chemicals can disrupt neurological development such as influencing gene expression, protein pathways and hypothyroidism.....

Read entire article by Mona S. Gupta, Ph.D.

By Kenneth Barbalace

Whatever their motivation - be it energy independence for the U.S. or an attempt at fighting climate change for Europe - world governments are now heavily subsidizing biofuels. U.S. President George Bush pledged up to $150 million for work on cellulosic ethanol in his 2006 State of the Union address, and as recently as March 2007 he visited Columbia to convince the Brazilian and Columbian governments to become the "green fuel" centres of the world.

Biofuels, or fuels derived from living matter, however, are nothing new. Rudolph Diesel unveiled the first generation biodiesel-fueled engine which ran on peanut oil in 1898 at the World Exhibition in Paris, and Henry Ford intended his 1908 Model T to run on ethanol.... Read entire article

By Roberta

When I embarked upon my recent trip to China, I was ready for the worst in terms of pollution. I had been told that tap water was not only not potable, but also not suitable for bathing because it was so murky that nobody would want to bathe in it. (Showers were considered to be ok). I guess they figured the impurities would just roll off. We were told to take dust masks with us so that we could breathe outside. I expected the hotel rooms to be lacking in environmentally friendly technology.

How surprised I was when I walked into my hotel room in Beijing! Lights, TV and all other electronic systems were operable only when the hotel key card was inserted into a slot provided on the wall just inside the hotel room door. When one left the hotel room and removed their key card, all of the electrically operated gadgets in the room would go dead. No energy was wasted when nobody is present in the room. A remote control center next to the bed allowed occupants to operate any light, television, etc. in the hotel room without getting up.

I got out my water-purifying device and filled it with water from the tap. Wow! It wasn't murky (not that I would have drunk it, but at least it looked ok). I did use it to brush my teeth, as we were told it was safe to do so. Surprisingly, Beijing air didn't seem any more polluted that one of the major cities in USA, and I found no reason to don a dust mask. What I did notice was that the streets were clean. They had plenty of manpower to pick up litter and keep the streets immaculate. Street cleaners consisted of people with brooms and huge dustpans cleaning up the solid debris, and one individual on a bicycle with a tank of water on the back. Another man walked along behind directing the hose and scrubbing the roads. There was no wasted water, and no need for fossil fuel to propel the vehicle. Needless to say, there was not much of an obesity problem in Beijing.

The vast majority of people traveled to work on bicycles. Some used motorbikes, and a small percent of Chinese drove automobiles. Because of the density of people living in Chinese cities, the roads are packed with cars even though most people don't drive. If the percent of Americans riding bikes or motor scooters to work equaled that of most China cities, America wouldn't have much of a carbon emissions problem. Shanghai has a novel way of encouraging people to ride bikes or take public transportation. Cars are readily available for purchase. The only problem is that it costs more to register a car than it does to purchase one. License plates have codes that indicate what city the vehicle is registered in. If an individual tries registering a vehicle in another city to avoid paying the high registration fee, they are out of luck. According to our Chinese tour guide, it is illegal to drive a vehicle that is not registered in Shanghai on shanghai highways during the day on weekdays.

Shanghai also boasts the fastest train in the world, the Maglev, which can reach speeds of 300km/hr in 2 minutes flat, and cruise at 500km/hr. The Maglev uses magnetic levitation by traveling on a magnetic field generated by both the train and the rails. It is reported to be "pollution free," though there is some concern about "magnetic pollution." Since the entire length of the present run from Pudong Airport to down town Shanghai is only 30km, the train can never reach maximum speed before it has to slow down. The entire trip takes about 10 – 15 minutes. Travel during rush hour from the Pudong Airport to Shanghai would take 1 ½ or more, as I found out when our plane arrived at Pudong Airport during rush hour; so who wouldn't choose to take the Maglev rather than drive?

The whole idea is to make other means of transportation so convenient and travel by private vehicle so expensive and inconvenient that people will use alternatives. Public transportation is readily accessible and quite convenient, even for tourists who do not speak Chinese.

One difference was immediately obvious when comparing new apartments in USA and new apartments in China. Almost all new structures had solar panels on the roof. According to Worldwatch Institute, an environmental group based in Washington D.C., 60% of the solar capacity installed in the world (30 million households) are found in China ⁽²⁾. Solar panels are being installed throughout Beijing, including 1,100 Solar panels on the Beijing's National Indoor Stadium, ahead of the 2008 Summer Olympics ^{(1, 3)}. China takes solar power back to the basics. Even in the cities there were typically clothes hanging on lines outside the windows and balconies of every apartment – again, no need for pollution producing energy.

Not everybody in China lives in apartments. I saw many housing developments in the suburbs of Shanghai. While there were many beautiful flowering shrubs and vines growing along fences and walls, there weren't huge weed-free lawns. Instead, between these houses were patches of corn, mounds of melons, apple, pear and pomegranate trees; and behind the homes, there were rice paddies and tethered goats grazing between the paddies. Chicken coops were more common in the yards than were garages. Basically, no land was wasted. Zoning ordinances in the USA would usually prohibit such land use in typical housing developments.

When we flew north from Beijing on our way back over the pole to JFK airport, I was thrilled to see wind-farms sitting on hills above little cities and towns. In checking, I discovered that at the end of 2005 China had 59 in-grid wind-farms with a total of 1,854 wind turbine generators. China ranked 10th in the world with 1,266 megawatt in-grid wind power installed capacity ⁽⁶⁾. In addition, by the end of 2004 China had produced 200,000 off-grid wind turbine generators (usually rural single family generators), and was ranked number one in the world ⁽⁶⁾.

China is sitting at a crossroads in terms of energy sources. They are making tremendous strides into alternative energy sources. But let's look at their present predicament a little closer. At the present time 70% of china's energy comes from coal ⁽⁸⁾. It is a country rich in coal, and with a rapidly growing economy, the need for coal will likely continue. The energy produced by 3 Gorges Dam is predicted to reduce the China's dependence on coal, but even the Dam Project has the environmental community wondering and worrying. At the same time, the China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation's (Sinopec) Xinjiang Oil Field will likely boost China's oil reserves to 1 billion tons by 2010 ⁽⁹⁾. So, it appears that fossil fuel will not be making an exit from China any time soon.

With a population of 1.3 billion people, China has more than 4 times the population of the USA. 20% of the world's population lives in China, but China consumes only 10% of the world's energy and 4% of the world's oil ^{(6, 10, 11)}. On the contrary, USA is the home to just 5% of the world population and consumes 23% of the world's energy and 25% of the world's oil ^{(10,11, 13)}. Remember also that China is a developing industrial power. Americans depend upon China to manufacture a huge amount of products we use every day. Why? Because China can make the products cheaper! So, much of their pollution and energy use goes to products sold to Americans and not to the Chinese, who are living within a small environmental footprint.

China has suffered growing pains as it attempts to meet the criteria of the Kyoto Protocol (of which China is a member). Realizing that the vegetation in cities such as Shanghai were disappearing at an alarming rate, they decided to move many trees from other areas of China and plant them in cities. A major undertaking, referred to as the "Great Green Wall," involves planting a shelterbelt of trees 4,480km (2,800 mile) long across northwestern China skirting the Gobi Desert ⁽¹³⁾. This is a 75 year project which started in 2000 and is now well underway. Initially they moved many large trees in order to hasten the development of the wall of trees that is intended to block the desert sands from Beijing and other cities. They also moved trees into Shanghai. Indeed, it did work. The trees look as if they have always been there. A problem that they failed to consider, however, was how many trees they could remove from a given area without affecting the ecology of that ecosystem. According to our tour guide, they are now conducting reforestation in some areas from which too many trees had been taken.

Does China have environmental problems? Undoubtedly. When I was in Shanghai, the air pollution was much worse than it was in Beijing. Why? Most likely it is because there were many more vehicles on the road. The vehicle ownership in China is 10 vehicles/1000 ⁽⁷⁾. While in the USA there are 800 vehicles/1000 people ⁽⁷⁾. Imagine if China had the same ratio of automobiles/person as is common in the USA. China recognizes their problems and has set their benchmark very high. It is obvious everywhere one travels in China. Billboards everywhere have the same message, "We must protect the environment."

China has a long way to go, but their commitments are quite evident in their achievements to date. Before the USA is too critical of China, they should look at their own record. For the first time China is the world's #1 producer of CO2 emissions at a rate of 6.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2006 of carbon/year or 4.9 metric tons per capita. The USA comes in #2 with 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon of carbon or 19 metric tons per capita in 2006. Imagine how much carbon emissions China would have if they lived the 2007 American Dream and wasted energy as Americans do.

References

1. Chi-Chu Tschang; China Aims to Clean Up in Solar Power; Businessweek; April 11, 2007; Last accessed 10/24/07 http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2007/gb20070411_628994.htm
2. Areddy, James T.; Heat for the tubs of China; Wall Street Journal; Updated: 2006-03-31; Last accessed 10/24/07 http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB114374984648312629- A0F_dVhGloFXtoF8doVDS_kg_0k_20060406,00.html?mod=regionallinks
3. Editor; Shanghai to Install Solar Panels on Building Roofs; Shanghai Daily September 15, 2005; Last accessed 10/24/07; http://russian.china.org.cn/english/environment/142288.htm
4. Doe, Charlie /Beijing Bergey WindPower; Renewable Energy in China: Development of the Geothermal Heat Pump Market in China; NREL International Programs; 2004; Last accessed 10/24/07; www.nrel.gov/international
5. Mayfield, James; commercial officer, US Commercial Service, heads the Construction, Environmental, and Marine Technologies Team, US Consulate General, Shanghai; Top 10 Questions on Environmental Projects: Answers to the most frequently asked questions about China's environmental sector; China Business Review; 3/11/02; Last Accessed 10/25/07; http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0311/02.html
6. Feller, Gordon; China's Wind Power: The World's Most Populous Country Harnesses Wind to Help Power Burgeoning Economy; EcoWorld; 7/15/06; Last Accessed 10/25/07; http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/articles2.cfm?tid=390
7. Corning Environmental Technologies; China - on the fast track to Lowering Emissions; Emissions Control Technology Magazine; 1/25/2004; Last Accessed 10/16/07; http://www.corning.com/environmentaltechnologies/auto-emissions-magazine/ archive-edition/2004-1/article1.aspx
8. Lim, Louisa; China's Coal-Fueled Boom Has Costs; National Public Radio – Morning Edition; 5/2/07; Last Accessed 10/26/07; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9947668
9. Wang yu; Xinjiang provides Succor to Sinopec; China Daily; Vol 27 no. 8571 October 12 Page 1
10. Wingfield-Hayes, Rupert, BBC correspondent, Beijing; Satisfying China's demand for energy; BBC News; 2/16/2006; Last Accessed 10/26/07; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4716528.stm
11. NationMaster; from CIA The World Factbook; Updated 10/18/2007; Last Accessed 10/16/07 http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
12. Population and Energy Consumption; World Population Balancev; (Data courtesy of BP, "Statistical Review of World Energy 2005;" and United Nations, "World Population Prospects: 2004 Revision"); Last Accessed 10/26/07 http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/pop/energy/
13. China's Great Green Wall; BBC News; 3/3/2001; Last Accessed 10/26/07; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ monitoring/media_reports/1199218.stm

By Kenneth Barbalace

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a consortium of 13 counties in Western Pennsylvania will be hosting the nation’s foremost annual conference for first responders, counter-terrorism professionals, emergency managers, and medical, law enforcement and industry personnel in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania on December 2-5, 2007.

According to the U.S. EPA's press release for this conference, more than 1,000 disaster experts are expected to attend the 2007 U.S. EPA Emergency Preparedness & Prevention and Hazmat Spills Conference at the Pittsburgh Hilton, including 100 exhibitors showing the latest technology. The conference will feature speakers on such relevant topics as the financing of terrorism, workshops, intensive training, and local field trips, including the Flight 93 crash site in Shanksville, Pa.

More information is available at the conference website: http://www.2007conference.org/, or by calling the conference hotline at 1-800-364-7974.

By Kenneth Barbalace

Too often the discussion of renewable energy development focuses on climate change (aka global warming) to the exclusion of other equally important environmental, national security and social justice concerns. While yes, climate change is a serious concern (in spite of what the skeptics try to portray), we need to invest in and not unduly burden the development of renewable energies like wind and solar energies for many other reasons.

Predictably, coverage in the local press of last weeks hearings for a proposed wind farm on Black Nubble Mountain near Sugarloaf Maine in front of Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission, focused on the issue of climate change because of comments by the National Park Service Superintendent for the Appalachian Trail, Pam Underhill. While later acknowledging that global warming was a real concern, she stated that global warming was "irrelevant" in considering whether or not the proposed wind farm should be allowed, which she opposes (see my editorial National Park Service Superintendent states 'Global Warming Irrelevant' in opposing wind farm). While her comments have made for good fodder and headlines for blogs like ours, they also obscured very serious issues.

Other environmental concerns

Beyond contributing to global warming, the burning of fossil fuels to meet our energy needs has a much more direct and observable impact on our environment. Let us for a moment follow the environmental impact of coal from its "cradle to grave". According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, surface mining of coal accounts for 60% of the coal burned in coal fired power plants each year. The most destructive of the surface mining techniques is called mountaintop removal where hundreds of feet of overburden is blasted away and dumped in convenient valleys to access veins of coal which may only be a few feet thick. In West Virginia alone, over 300,000 acres of hardwood forests and 1,000 miles of streams have been destroyed by mountaintop removal. In an open letter to West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin in December of 2006 on the Ohio Valley Environmental Conservation Website, Mark Schmerling wrote:

A mountaintop removal site on Cazy Mountain, in Boone County, was "reclaimed" 22 years ago. It sprouts nothing but non-native grass, and a few thin, nasty-looking, non-native shrubs. Where is the earth-cooling hardwood forest? Where is the native ginseng that mountaineers have always been able to dig to sell and use? Where are the deer, the turkeys, the many species of songbirds, small mammals and other animals? Where are the clean, swift-flowing streams and their native trout? Where is life-giving soil? Where is life?

Once the coal has been mined, it must be transported to the power plants that need it via trains, which burn diesel fuel for power releasing nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and soot into the atmosphere. In addition, as coal is transported in open rail cars, coal dust is blown into the air contributing to the particulate matter released into the atmosphere.

To ensure a steady supply of coal in the event of transportation disruptions, most power plants maintain a sizeable stockpile of coal stored on site in giant open air piles. These piles of coal can leach chemical hazards into water supplies and wind can stir up coal dust into the atmosphere.

Upon burning coal, power plants release toxic chemicals and heavy metals into the atmosphere, including mercury along with tremendous amounts of carbon soot and fossil CO2. The mercury eventually rains out of the atmosphere hundreds if not thousands of miles down wind polluting lakes and streams. Eventually fish in those waters accumulate the mercury in their bodies and become hazardous to eat (as has happened here in Maine). The carbon soot also stays suspended in the atmosphere and can travel for thousands of miles before settling out. Recently it was reported that industrial soot "raining" out of the atmosphere in the arctic region may be largely responsible for the artic ice cap melting much faster than was predicted by climate models (see "Soot Could Hasten Melting of Arctic Ice" at Live Science).

Other fossil fuels like crude oil also have their fair share of cradle to grave environmental impacts including tragic oil spills and emissions from combustion.

In his open letter referenced above, Mark Schmerling summed the environmental issue very succinctly when he wrote:

The damage that has been done and is being done will last for thousands of years, and through hundreds of generations. All of those generations will look back on what has been done in the past thirty years and say, "Who could have let this happen?"

Will you be one of those who let it happen or will you stand among those who tried to change things, including your own energy use habits, to help stop the environmental destruction?

Social costs of fossil fuels

While it is not often thought about, using fossil fuels for energy historically has come with very high social costs. Whether it be wars fought over oil, workers being killed in industrial accidents or entire towns poisoned by the hazardous byproducts that are release into the atmosphere or water supplies by mining/drilling operations.

In the case of coal mining, tailings ponds held back by earthen dams and sludge pumped into abandoned mines can slowly leach their hazardous contents into ground water and drinking water supplies as has happened to four communities in Mingo County West Virginia (see "State Supreme Court upholds verdict against coal company" - West Virginia Gazette). The coal dust from mining operations can blanket nearby communities causing residents respiratory diseases and distress (See "West Virginia Town Fights Blanket of Coal Dust" - New Standard News).

Occasionally tailings dams fail, destroying villages downstream, as happened in 1972 on Buffalo Creek in West Virginia when a dam failure sent 500,000 cubic meters of tailings down a narrow valley leaving 124 people dead, 7 people missing and 4,000 homes destroyed (see "Disaster on Buffalo Creek" - West Virginia Gazette). In October of 2000 near the town of Inez Kentucky, the bottom of a tailings pond collapsed into an abandon mine that ran beneath it, resulting in 250 million gallons of slurry surging into the mineshafts and out two mine exits flooding nearby creeks. Twenty miles downstream had to be declared aquatic dead zones and communities in ten counties had to shut down their water systems (see "When Mountains Move" - National Geographic).

Coal mining is one of the most dangerous jobs one could have and as of this writing 18 people had already been killed in coal mining accidents in the United States in 2007 alone. In 2006 there were 47 people killed in such accidents.

To keep us supplied with cheap fossil fuel energy people are dying, and lives, communities and ecosystems are being destroyed. In short, there is blood on the hands of everyone who depends upon fossil fuel as their source of energy. We can not lower the social costs of fossil fuels unless we develop alternative energy sources and reduce the amount of energy we consume.

The real inconvenient truth, national security

Like all nations, the United States is utterly dependent upon fossil fuels, and much of this energy (especially crude oil) must be imported from politically unstable corners of the world run by unsavory regimes. As the world industrialized in the late 1800s, reliable sources of cheap energy became critical to nations' national security and wars were driven in a large part by the need to secure energy supplies. Throughout the 1900s and even today, wars and allegiances between countries have frequently been in a large part about securing reliable supplies of energy. No where is this more clearly obvious than in the Middle East as far back as the end of World War One. Even in his new book "The Age of Turbulence" Former Federal Reserve Chairman Allen Greenspan wrote:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

He is right, why should we deny this? We need to face reality; we would not have cared to give the Middle East more than lip service for the past sixty years if it were not for the oil that flows from their sands. After all, we do not go after depots in Africa. The reality is that without the steady supply of oil from the Middle East and other parts of the world our nation would grind to a halt. The threat from Iran is not nuclear weapons; it is that they might stabilize the Middle East under their view of the way things should be. This could seriously threaten the steady supply of oil to the United States. The same was true when Saddam invaded the Kuwait. Sure liberating a beleaguered nation sounds comforting, but underlying this was our undeniable need to keep the oil flowing.

As a matter of national security, the United States must become energy independent. We must get to a point as a nation where we do not depend upon energy from nations that are run by tyrants. We can not depend upon our own fossil fuel reserves to achieve energy independence. As a society we must invest in renewable energies on a personal, local, regional and national basis and we all must learn to use our energy more wisely, which includes improving the energy efficiency of everything in our lives.

Are wind turbines truly an eye sore or are they a sign of hope?

Wind farms may not be particularly beautiful things to look at on a distant natural vista, but they are signs of a brighter, cleaner and safer future. They do not maim or kill thousands of workers. They do not have to be continually fed at the expense of destroying forests, streams or communities. They do not endlessly pump toxic chemicals into the atmosphere or water supplies. They do not produce carbon soot that accelerates the melting of icecaps and glaciers, nor do they contribute to climate change. Most importantly, when better technology comes along, all traces of their existence can be removed from the land and it returned back to what it was before, with the mountains still intact and the scrap materials recycled into something new.

Wind energy is not an end all be all solution to our energy needs, rather it must be part of a bigger mix of energy sources. Wind turbines, however, have the distinct advantage of being able to be built closer to where the power will be consumed. This will result in less energy being lost during transmission and they can help decentralize an electric grid making it more robust and less susceptible to the loss of a single source of power generation. Finally, every megawatt of energy produced by a wind turbine is one less megawatt of energy came at tremendous cost to the environment, a community or health of people.

Superintendent Underhill's opposition to the wind farm project on Black Nubble Mountain near Sugarloaf Maine is dead wrong; concerns about scenic views from the Appalachian Trail must not override other concerns. Yes protecting the AT is a legitimate concern, but there are bigger issues at play. Unfortunately, if Underhill gets her way and the wind farm does not get built it will be her home state of West Virginia that will continue to pay the tragically high price of her opposition and our nation's failed energy policy in terms of blood spilled, lives ruined and their environment destroyed.

By Kenneth Barbalace

Yesterday (9/20/2007), the National Park Service's Appalachian Trail Superintendent Pam Underhill of West Virginia, stated that global warming was "irrelevant" while testifying in opposing to the placement of Maine Mountain Power's proposed 18 wind turbines on Black Nubble Mountain near Sugarloaf Maine. Underhill, who was testifying in her official capacity as a NPS superintendent front of Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC), said she has fought hard to protect trail for 30 years and considers it her middle child. In her testimony she said didn't want wind turbines located anywhere near what she considers to be a pristine section of the Appalachian Trail because she didn't want hikers to have to see them. Under questioning she acknowledged that global warming was a concern, however, Underhill refused to say whether she would prefer to see the development of renewable energy over the development of more coal fired power plants.

In response to the National Resources Council of Maine's support for the wind farm, which would be three miles from the Appalachian Trail at its closet point, Underhill stated:

"I do not know why the National Resources Council of Maine decided to throw the Appalachian Trail under the bus on this one, but it is not something we will forget any time soon."

In the past, the National Resources Council of Maine had opposed the wind farm, but after negotiations lead Maine Mountain Power to reduce their proposed project from 30 turbines spread over two mountain tops to just 18 turbines on one mountain top, the NRC of Maine threw their support behind the project.

In an interview aired on a Maine Public Broadcasting news report of Maine's Land Use Regulatory Commission's public hearings for the proposed wind farm project Shawn Mahoney, Vice President of Conservation Law Foundation's Maine chapter, said he was stunned to hear Underhill say that global warming was irrelevant when considering this project.

Personally, I'm more than just stunned that Underhill stated global warming is irrelevant, I'm beyond disbelief on so many levels. First I see this as an issue of someone from a distant state forcing her view of the way things should be on another state that is trying to satisfy part of its energy needs in more environmentally sustainable ways. Second, I wonder, what is worse, hikers occasionally seeing wind turbines on a distant mountain peak or hikers not seeing the mountain peak at all because of pollution from coal fired power plants? Maybe she prefers that power plants burning West Virginia coal continue to belch out mercury laden pollution that then rains down and poison the fish in our lakes and streams such that the fish are not safe for hikers to eat? Maybe she prefers to do nothing to try and reduce our contributing to the melting of the polar ice caps and driving species that depend upon those icepacks for survival.

Wind turbines are not appropriate on every mountain top, but they can be an important part of our renewable energy mix and with other renewable energies can help reduce the need for more coal fired power plants. It is Mainers who will see these wind turbines the most and if Mainers are willing to accept some visual blemishes on our horizons to reduce our overall environmental impact, who is Underhill, to interfere. After all, she lives in a state that removes mountains to get to coal (I wonder what that does to their scenic views?). I remember working in the Shenandoah National Park in Virginia along the Appalachian Trail some twenty years ago and not being able to see distant mountains because of pollution. I'd much rather see an occasional wind farm on a distant mountain than not see the mountains at all. I'd prefer not to lose parts of some costal State and National parks here in Maine to rising oceans caused by the melting of polar ice caps. I don't want my grand children or great grand children to never experience the taste of Maine maple syrup because a warming planet did in our sugar maples. Finally, I'd love to be able to have our lakes and streams free of mercury pollution so that I could go fishing with my children and eat the fish we catch.

Related coverage elsewhere

• Maine PBN report of LURC hearing (requires Windows Media Player)
• Wind farm generates political tempest: A federal official's stance on Maine's Black Nubble project is questioned by a California congressman (MaineToday.com)

By Roberta

Three states recently announced ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse emissions because, in the words of New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine, "…In the absence of leadership on the federal level the burden has now fallen upon the state executives and legislatures to lead the way on this issue…". In addition to protecting the residents in their own states, proactive states are blazing the trail for others to follow.

This approach is not a typical one for the states that often prefer that the federal government stay out of state affairs, especially ones that are likely to cost everyone money. The difference is that individuals at the state level realize the seriousness of the situation and that they owe it to their constituents to mitigate on behalf of their people when the federal government refuses to take action.

Exactly what do these states plan to do to alleviate the situation? Each strategy is very different, but the anticipated outcome is the same, significant reduction of emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as quickly as possible.

According to the bill passed in the New Jersey Legislature on June 21, 2007, greenhouse gas emissions generated by every sector of New Jersey's economy will be required to drop to the 1990 level (a reduction of about 13%) by 2020 and that emissions will be capped at 20% of the 2006 level by 2050. The bill will also require a statewide greenhouse-gas monitoring program that will apply to emissions from out-of-state power plants exporting electricity to New Jersey. There is a plan to charge emission fees to every company that emits CO2. The bill has resulted in complaints from business and industrial groups. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in coming months. (New York Times article (subscription required), University of California press release)

In a bill signed into law by Governor Schwartzenegger in late January 2007, transportation fuels sold in California will have to contain 10% less carbon by 2020 (American Chemical Society: Environmental Science and Technology Online). This bill is unique in that it will provide a way to judge fuels from a life-cycle standpoint, not just from the tailpipe. This means that the amount of CO2 emitted during any phase of mining, manufacturing, transportation, etc. would have to be taken into account in measuring the CO2 emission, not just the CO2 emitted when the fuel is burned (known as cradle to grave). This bill will penalize high carbon fossil fuels (coal to liquid), because while the coal to liquid fuel may burn cleaner than gasoline, the process of producing it emits much more CO2 into the atmosphere

According to Professor Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, "This new (California) policy is hugely important, and has never been done before. It will likely transform the energy industries...We anticipate much greater reductions after 2020." (A New Era for A New Era for Transportation Fuels: Governor Schwarzenegger's Low Governor Schwarzenegger's Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Other Carbon Fuel Standard and Other Transportation Initiatives).

Florida has taken a totally different and yet logical approach to the problem of climate change. In July 2007 Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced that he wants utilities to generate one-fifth of their electricity from renewables to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gases. This action is necessary because the federal government has failed to act on this critical issue. How will this be accomplished? The sunshine state has plenty of sunshine to power rooftop solar panels and renewable energy advocates are urging the state to help residents create thousands of mini power plants in their homes. Crist plans to call on the state to permit people who generate power at homes and businesses to lower utility bills by putting excess electricity back into the grid. Crist has also suggested the use of wind generators to accomplish the 20% reduction in use of electric energy. While he has not set a proposed date for reaching the goal, Mike Sole, secretary of the state's Department of Environmental Protection, suggested that the target date is 2020. (Reuters)

Other states have indicated their intent to take action in order to curb the emission of CO2. If the leaders of our country find the truth too inconvenient and choose not to see the handwriting on the wall, then someone else will have to do it for them. Fortunately, there are state leaders who are courageous enough to do what has to be done.

By Kenneth Barbalace

Junk mail clogs our mailboxes, fills up our trash/recycle bins, wastes our natural resources and in the case of credit card applications, opens us up to the potential for identity theft. For years people have had to suffer this unwanted plague infesting our mail boxes, because the effort required to get off of these mailing lists was just too great.

A couple of months ago I learned of a service called GreenDimes that will fill out the contact bulk mail, catalog and credit card companies on my behalf and fill out the forms necessary to get these companies to stop sending our household unsolicited mail (e.g. credit card applications). In addition, with every subscription purchased, GreenDimes plants trees through their tree planting partners to help off set some of the trees that get killed by junk mail companies.

Yes, I know I could do much of this myself, but they have the process automated, which saves me considerable time, effort and frustration. For me this time savings was well worth the subscription cost. Obviously, the stopping of junk mail isn't an overnight event, but over the past couple of months, the flow of junk mail our postal carrier delivers to us has significantly slowed. There is, however, still one "shared mail" company that is sending us those weekly mailing circulars, in spite of the fact that I contacted them directly myself and asked them to stop sending us their crap.

When I signed up for GreenDimes they were charging a $39 annual subscription fee, however, in my email this morning I saw an announcement from them that they are changing the fee to a one time $15 fee making it a much more attractive service.

We should not, however, need to pay some third party to facilitate the stopping of junk mail, nor rely on companies' voluntarily honoring "do not mail" requests. Just like there is a National Do Not Call Registry here in the United States that companies must subscribe to and honor if they are going to make telemarketing calls, there needs to be a "national do not mail" registry that companies must subscribe to and cull their mailing lists against prior to sending out bulk mail mailings. To facilitate a grassroots effort to lobby Congress to create just such a "national do no mail registry," GreenDimes has now started an online petition.

To be sure, there are some very powerful corporate interests that would not want to see such a list mandated, and to be sure they will throw lots of lobbying money at defeating any efforts to create a "national do not mail registry," however, a precedent was set with the National Do Not Call Registry and a solid grassroots effort to lobby for such a list could prevail in the end. Freedom of speech isn't just the right to broadcast one's message to others; it is also the right to be free of unwanted intrusions. Just like we have the right to opt out of telemarketers calling us via a national registry, we should also have the right to opt out of junk mail solicitations via a national registry. Such a registry is also the right thing to do to help conserve our natural resources and reduce the waste that goes into landfills or has to be recycled. Just think how many trees would be spared and how much water saved if those of us who do not want to receive junk mail could easily opt out from receiving it.

By Kenneth Barbalace

An acquaintance of mine set me a link to a webpage berating a plan in Santa Monica, California to build the nation's first sustainable parking garage. The project includes photovoltaic roof panels, a storm drain water treatment system, recycled construction materials, and energy efficient mechanical systems. It will also feature ground floor retail shops.

So what was the writer's complaint? Their complaint was that "motoring" is not a sustainable activity and that the parking garage was ugly. They also claimed that the automobile age was going to be over in 17 years. Southern California giving up the automobile within 17 years would be like residents of northern Siberia giving up parkas; it is not going to happen. While better mass transit may be a noble objective, the reality is that new parking garages are still going to have to be built in cities like Santa Monica. Building parking garages to be as sustainable as possible and to make the best possible use of the space (e.g. retail space on the ground floor and roof top solar collectors) is a laudable effort.

We have seen a similar disconnect with some "environmentalists" (obstructionists would be a better term) up here in New England. In our case it deals with various wind farm proposals. Wind farms would seem to be the very picture of environmental sustainability, yet several recent wind farm proposals were blocked on "environmental" grounds. One proposal that has been fought using every method possible was a plan to put wind turbines on platforms out to sea off the coast of Cape Cod in Massachusetts. The plan was to put them far enough out to sea that they would appear very small or would be obscured by the curvature of the Earth, yet residents fought against this plan primarily because it would spoil the scenic ocean views of their multimillion dollar waterfront homes. Wind farm proposals here in Maine have run up against the same "environmental" claim of spoiling the scenic view because they would be placed on mountain tops.

Another claim often used to obstruct wind farm proposals is the claim that they will result in high bird mortality rates, which just is not true. In fact, one recent study by the National Academy of Sciences on the environmental impact of wind turbines I was reading and had planned to blog on but didn't, found that the bird mortality rate of modern slow revolving wind mills was lower than with other man made structures like tall buildings, power lines, etc. In fact, feral cats are much more devastating to bird populations than anything else and there is an up cry every time there is any effort to exterminate or otherwise remove feral house cats from the wild. Even the National Audubon Society supports wind farms and collaborates with wind farm developers "to best determine how to maximize the benefits of wind power while reducing the potential for harm to birds, wildlife and the environment."

Would the "environmentalists" fighting against wind farms and/or sustainable parking garages prefer that we build more coal fired power plants that spew mercury and greenhouse gases or build new nuclear reactors instead of wind turbines? The reality is that everything human civilization does has an impact on the environment. Cities like Santa Monica, California will continue to grow in population and thus will need more parking garages, and all of society will continue to need more energy. Not everyone can use mass transit from their home, but they could drive to well situated parking garages to pick up mass transit to complete their trip. Building sustainable parking garages that make use of the wasted space on top of the structure by adding solar panels and constructing them out of recycled materials is the right thing to do. So is building mountain top wind projects here in Maine or sea based wind projects off the coast of Cape Cod.

Yes, the true environmental impact of renewable energy projects like wind farms needs to be evaluated and minimized, however, it must also be recognized that all energy sources have environmental impacts, and we can not do without energy. The question we must ask when evaluating the environmental impact of renewable energies like wind farms is what are their net environmental impact compared to the traditional alternatives?

The simple fact of the matter is that many people try to wrap their arguments and obstructionism against projects like the sustainable parking garage in Santa Monica, California and wind farms in environmental terms when the real reason for their opposition is NIMBY (not in my back yard). They simply don't want their aesthetic sensibilities offended by the infrastructure required to sustain our civilization. This NIMBY attitude wrapped in a cloak of environmental concern is giving environmentalism a bad reputation and is wrong headed. From a big picture perspective, being environmentally responsible requires occasionally offending our aesthetic sensibilities. Personally, I would be thrilled if the next parking garage project here in Portland, Maine followed the sustainable parking garage model and would love to see some local mountain tops dotted with wind mills. For me, these things would mean we were taking local responsibility for the environmental impact of our energy needs.

Related Articles on EnvironmentalChemistry.com

• Environmental Justice and the NIMBY principle
  Not in my backyard! In whose backyard does our hazardous waste end up?
• Increased Mercury Levels Attributed to Industrial Activities
  Outdated coal fired power plants are contributing to increased mercury levels in lakes and streams.

Further Reading Elsewhere on the Web

• Audubon Society "Strongly Supports Wind Power", TreeHugger.com, 12/26/2006
• Cats More Lethal Than Wind Turbines, TreeHugger.com, 5/23/2007
• Putting Wind Power's Impact on Birds in Perspective, American Wind Energy Association, 2003

By Roberta

Last spring a rumor circulating on the Internet claimed that cell phone towers were responsible for the sudden disappearance of the worker bees and total collapse of 25% of the nations 2.4 million bee colonies (New York Times April 23, 2007). I have never traced the rumor directly but it appears to be related to a dubious report from a scientist in Germany who linked the death of bees to the use of cell phones, more precisely the cell phone towers. Much like what would happen in a game of “Gossip,” the report passed from email to blog to email, and before long people were talking about ditching their cell phones to save the bees.

To be sure, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is real, but it is not caused by cell phone towers, neither is it caused by Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), parasitic varroa mites, and unusual weather patterns (Chemical and Engineering News; Why are the Bees Dying June 18, 2007). We can also rule out the honey bee “rapture” as a foreshadowing of things to come and secret plots by Russia or Osama Bin Laden to destroy American agriculture.

Presently, we still are not sure what is happening to the bees, but we do know that when CCD strikes, it does so very rapidly. A seemingly healthy hive can be abandoned by worker bees in two weeks or sometimes in two days. The queen and immature pupae are left alone with only a handful of young bees to care for them. Soon they die. The honey is not disturbed, and few, if any, dead worker bees are found around the hive.

While CCD was first reported along the East Coast of USA, it appears to trace its roots to California where nearly half the hives in the USA are shipped annually to pollinate the almond crop. From there the hives may be shipped to other parts of California to pollinate other crops, to the state Washington to apple and cherry orchards, back to the Dakotas for honey production, etc. So, approximately 50% of all domestic honey bees in the country make their way by truck to the almond groves of California. What a perfect setup for a pathogen to spread across the USA and on to the rest of the world. CCD has been reported in much of Europe and Taiwan.

The attention has turned to four potential culprits or some combination thereof:

• Pathogens
• Poor nutrition
• Exposure to toxins such as pesticides
• Stress

One hypothesis suggests that the bee immune systems might be compromised as a result of being shipped long distances to different climates, poor nutrition (from sugar water supplements provided in the spring to hasten their return to pollination and feeding upon a single pollen source (almond trees) for extended periods) and pesticides. A relatively new chloro-nicotinyl insecticide, called Imidacloprid, has been suggested as a possible culprit. It kills other insects by causing disorientation and immune system collapse. The list of possible pathogens that might take advantage of such a situation has been narrowed down from an original pool of 50 possible viruses, bacteria and fungi, to four or five that might work synergistically with one of the afore mentioned stressors to bring down the hive.

While the jury is still out, it is hoped that the cause or causes of CCD can be identified in the near future. On the other hand, Mary R. Berenbaum of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign has suggested the outside possibility that the CCD episode will just pass and nobody will ever figure out exactly what happened (Chemical and Engineering News; Why are the Bees Dying June 18, 2007).

By Kenneth Barbalace

This Independence Day the United States has another reason to celebrate. The population of American Bald Eagles, the majestic symbol of this great nation, has made such a recovery that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced last week that it will be removed from both the Endangered Species list and Threatened Species List.

According to the USFWS in 1963 there were barely 400 nesting pairs of bald eagles left in the lower 48 states. Since then their numbers have increased 25 fold and some 10,000 pairs of Bald Eagles now call the lower 48 states home. While they will no longer be a listed species, they will still be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which prohibit taking, killing, selling or otherwise harming of eagles, their nests or eggs.

It should be emphasized, that the bald eagle was only on the Endangered Species List in the lower 48 states and that they were not endangered in Alaska. In fact, when I lived in the island fishing community of Sitka Alaska (population 8,500) some twelve to fifteen years ago, I worked at one of the two chain fast food restaurants there. The restaurant was on waterfront property and if one went in to open the restaurant in the early morning and the tide was out, quite frequently there would be dozens of bald eagles on the shoreline fishing. During the summer months it was routine to have up to almost a dozen bald eagles sitting it the top of a partially dead tree at the edge of the parking lot. They would spend their day watching the activity around our drive-thru and watching the swarms of ravens and seagulls fighting over French fries the customers would toss to the smaller birds. The eagles sitting in rows in the tree watching the activities almost reminded one of an audience in a theater watching a play.

In a park where I frequently played disc golf with a friend, it was common for eagles to be sitting in the top of trees watching the activities below them. They really seemed to be a curious bird that enjoyed simply watching the activities of the day from high up in their perches. It was in this park that I had one of my strangest encounters with a bald eagle. We were playing disc golf, when suddenly we heard the sound of crashing branches. We looked up just in time to see an eagle tumbling through the forest and crash into the forest floor in the most inglorious way. We were very dumbfounded and simply stared at the eagle in disbelief. The giant bird repeatedly tried to gain flight to get out of the forest, but its wingspan was too long and it kept crashing into branches, which would again bring it to the ground. The routine of it hoping along the ground for a few yards, trying to gain flight and then crashing back to the earth because of tree branches continued for a few minutes until finally, the eagle made it to a clearing big enough to gain flight unimpeded by trees. For such a majestic bird, this was a very inglorious event.

With all the environmental battles and news of doom and gloom, sometimes it is really nice to be able to write on an environmental success story like bald eagles being removed from the Endangered and Threatened Species List. You can read all about this delisting on the USFWS bald eagle website.

Oh and this Wednesday, if like me you will be celebrating our nation's independence, say a thank you to the so often maligned Endangered Species Act for helping to bring about the return of our national symbol. While we are celebrating this success, we should not forget the other less charismatic but no less deserving animals on the Endangered Species List like snail darters, delta smelt, etc.

By Kenneth Barbalace

Google and Intel have founded the Climate Savers Computing Initiative, which stated goal is to reduce computer energy consumption 50% by 2010. According to the initiative, this would reduce computer caused greenhouse gas emissions by 54 million tons annually by 2010. If successful, this is the equivalent of removing 11 million cars from the road or shutting down twenty 500 megawatt coal fired power plants and could save $5.5 billion dollars in energy costs annually.

The energy efficiency standards being set by the Climate Savers Computing Initiative (CSCI) exceed standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's voluntary Energy Star program. As an example, while the Energy Star program requires computer power supplies to be 80% efficient, the CSCI's standards will call for power supplies in personal computers to be 90% efficient and server power supplies to be 92% efficient by 2010.

What many people don't realize is just how much electricity a typical non-Energy Star rated desk top computer can waste. The typical computer wastes over half of the electricity it consumes with the power supply being one of its biggest offenders. A laptop computer consumes a lot less electricity than a desk top computer, but there is still massive room for improvement. Buying an energy efficient computer may be more expensive right now (about $20 on average), however, the added cost is expected to disappear in time and the energy savings will more than make up for the added purchase cost fairly quickly.

So the next time you go to buy a computer, make sure it is an Energy Star computer and make sure to purchase it from a Climate Savers Computing Initiative member (which many of the major computer makers are). You will not only be doing something good for the environment, but will be keeping extra money in your wallet.

In addition to buying an Energy Star rated computer, other ways you can reduce the power your computer consumes include:

• turning it off when it is not needed or at least sending it into sleep or hibernation mode;
• setting the monitor to turn off automatically when the computer has been idle for five or ten minutes rather than using a screensaver will save electricity and wear on your monitor;
• using power management to turn off hard drives when computer is inactive;
• purchasing flat screen monitors rather than traditional CRT (cathode ray tube) monitors will save electricity and reduce the amount of hazardous materials (e.g. lead, mercury, etc.) that have to be disposed of at the end of the monitor's lifecycle.

Further reading

• Climate Savers Computing Initiative white paper
• Climate Savers Computing Initiative website
• Climate Savers Computing Initiative Members

Related Articles

• Coal-to-liquids vs. energy efficiency and renewable energies
• Earth Day resolutions you should make
• Saving money with compact florescent lights

By Kenneth Barbalace

As a result of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule changes to the enforcement of the Clean Water Act, it now only automatically applies to permanent navigable waters and the wetlands attached to these waters. Intermittent and non-navigable waters and their wetlands may or may not be protected depending upon other criteria including whether or not they are attached to navigable waterways. These changes were the result of a Supreme Court ruling last year that ruled in the words Justice Anthony Kennedy that there must be a "significant nexus" between a wetland and/or waters and a navigable waterway. The cause of the navigable water requirement in the Supreme Court's ruling is the wording of the Clean Water Act itself, which under Title I Section 101(a)(1) states:

it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985.

In fact the Clean Water Act uses the phrase "navigable waters" some 81 times. It was this phrase that caused a massive split within the Supreme Court with the justices writing no less than five separate opinions.

As a result of the Supreme Court's ruling and the EPA's subsequent rule changes, it is estimated that around 60% of streams and 20% of wetlands could be in jeopardy of not being protected under the Clean Water Act. To rectify this problem, there is a bill (H.R. 2421) working its way through the U.S. House of Representatives, which has 157 cosponsors. This bill would essentially eliminate the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act, thereby ensuring that virtually all U.S. waters are protected. Although some Senators (including Democratic Senator Russ Feingold) have expressed concern on this issue, I could not at this time find a Senate companion bill to H.R. 2421.

One would hope that some Senators will quickly cosponsor companion legislation to H.R. 2421 and that the bills are quickly passed into law so that the Clean Water Act can more clearly protect non-navigable waters and wetlands.

Further Reading

• Clean Water Act
• H.R. 2421: To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States
• Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States (PDF, 149k)
• U.S. Supreme Court Opinions RAPANOS ET UX., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
• U.S. Supreme Court Transcripts of oral arguments Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States (PDF 276k)
• Murky waters: How far should the Clean Water law go? By Brigid Sweeney, Medill Reports, Northwestern University

By Kenneth Barbalace

Yesterday (May 17, 2007) Microsoft and the Clinton Foundation announced a partnership with the C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group, a consortium of 40 of the world's largest cities committed to fighting global warming, whereby Microsoft will develop tools to enable cities to accurately monitor, compare and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the Clinton Foundation website, "Microsoft, together with a consortium of partners, will develop a single Web solution to allow cities to clearly understand their environmental footprint. With this information, cities can make better choices as they aim to improve their energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions."

The suite of tools and services being developed by Microsoft will ultimately help cities create a global standard for climate change accounting, mitigation and communications efforts. Microsoft is supposed to roll out the tools by the end of this year. Let's just hope Microsoft delivery date for these applications doesn't get delayed as bad as it did for Windows Vista.

In a related story, Fox News is reporting that the mayors of 500 U.S. cities have now signed a U.S. Conference of Mayors climate agreement that is in line with the Kyoto Protocol. New York Mayor Bloomberg is quoted as saying: "We cannot sit around and watch our environment deteriorate and put this world in jeopardy. The public wants action, and if you have a void, the mayors are going to fill that void."

By Kenneth Barbalace

Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul at the helm of News Corporation, whose conservative leaning newspapers and Fox News channel have long sided with climate change skeptics, has announced that he and News Corp. are going carbon neutral by 2010. In addition, Murdoch plans to use his media empire to encourage readers and viewers to do the same. Australia's The Age quoted Rupert Murdoch as saying last November in Japan:

"I have to admit that, until recently, I was somewhat wary of the warming debate. I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue."

"Some of the presumptions about extreme weather, whether it be hurricanes or drought, may seem far-fetched. What is certain is that temperatures have been rising and that we are not entirely sure of the consequences. The planet deserves the benefit of the doubt."

Although the announcement that News Corp. is going green was just announced, the company started working towards going carbon neutral some time ago. Rupert Murdoch found through an independent audit that News Corp. produces 641,150 tons of CO2 annually through its daily activities. In his "Global Energy Initiative Webcast" to all News Corp. employees Rupert Murdoch stated:

"This one is clear. Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction."

"When all of News Corporation becomes carbon neutral it will have the same impact as turning off the electricity in the city of London for five full days."

Rupert Murdoch's plan to take News Corp. carbon neutral by 2010 consists of three parts: 1) News Corp. will reduce its consumption of energy as much as possible; 2) they will switch to alternative "green" energies where it is feasible; and 3) as an absolute last resort they will offset those carbon emissions that they can not eliminate with carbon offset credits. Some of the ways News Corp. is reducing their energy consumption include solar powered golf carts for Fox Studios, replacing their fleets of vehicles with hybrids, and using the latest in LED lighting technologies in their new construction. According to Murdoch, two News Corp. companies, News International and Harper Collins Publishing, are already on track to be completely carbon neutral by the end of 2007.

News Corporation's efforts to measure their carbon footprint has extended so far that Fox Home Entertainment even calculated the total carbon footprint of individual DVDs they sell from manufacturing through the store shelf (0.75 lbs), and The Times of London calculated the carbon footprint of a single copy of their newspaper from tree to disposal (5.36 oz).

Beyond initiatives to reduce News Corp's own carbon footprint, its properties will reinvent the message of taking action on climate change from "doom and gloom" to "telling the story in a new way" to make addressing climate change "exciting" without "preaching". This includes a channel on MySpace called "OurPlanet" dedicated to climate change.

Given the traditionally conservative leanings of many News Corporation properties and their traditional favorable treatment of climate change skeptics, some more cynical types may think this is calculated a marketing ploy by Rupert Murdoch. However, after watching his webcast (which included comments by U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a discussion after Murdoch's comments), and seeing what News Corp. has already done, I don't believe this is a marketing ploy.

Climate change really appears to be a very genuine concern for Rupert Murdoch. I for one applaud his goal to take his company carbon neutral and to strive to get others to do the same; after all, as Rupert Murdoch stated, when it comes to climate change "we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction."

By Kenneth Barbalace

What will be done with the debris of the information age? The European Union (EU) member states are taking action and holding manufacturers responsible for the hazardous materials in their products. While these regulations are focused on electronic goods sold in the EU, they will also impact goods sold here in the U.S. and rest of the world as in many instances it is easier and cheaper to manufacture all products to be compliant with RoHS requirements than to produce multiple versions of the same product (an RoHS compliant version for Europe and a non-RoHS compliant version for everywhere else in the world). In the end this means that all consumers are benefiting from RoHS as more of the electronic products they buy will contain the toxic chemicals that make proper disposal and recycling so hard.

Read more about the EU's RoHS in our latest article by Jennifer Manning: RoHS: Europe's Initiative to Control Technological Waste