How to Buy Eco Friendly Paint

Eco-Friendly Paints
CC flickr photo courtesy of ewan and donabel

Painting the interior of your home should be a wonderful experience. It makes everything look new again, brightens up a room, and helps you create the ambiance you envision. Common commercial paints can do all that, but at the same time cause dangerous problems from fumes that can harm both you and the environment.

What Is Eco-Friendly Paint?

Eco-friendly paints are specifically designed to do everything those other paints do, but without the toxic fumes. The most common fumes, known as VOCs (volatile organic compounds), are not only present while the paint is drying, but can last long after the paint is applied. In fact, paints that contain VOCs can release those toxins into the air for years after application.

See our previous post about our own use of no VOC paint in a construction project.

In addition to VOCs, there are other ingredients to be wary of as well. Ammonia, acetone and formaldehyde are often used in paint products and are toxic, but are not covered under the EPA’s VOC rating. Read your labels carefully when choosing your home’s paint. Check the ingredients that are used to extend the shelf life of most commercial paints. Mold-inhibitors, biocides and fungicides can also off-gas chemicals for years. These chemicals can impact your air quality and can contribute to breathing problems.

Continue reading “How to Buy Eco Friendly Paint”

Was Cash for Clunkers a success?

PE - Cash For Clunkers - crushed cars 3474349149_c50c2c6c57_b
Photo courtesy of natashalcd at Flickr.com

The jury is still out on the Cash for Clunkers program. The last paperwork was filed on Monday, August 24, 2009, but crushed cars still waiting to be recycled. The final numbers are in – so how did the program score?

All told, C4C took 690,114 clunkers off of the road:

84 percent of consumers traded in trucks and 59 percent purchased passenger cars. The average fuel economy of the vehicles traded in was 15.8 miles per gallon and the average fuel economy of vehicles purchased is 24.9 mpg. – a 58 percent improvement.

That sounds wonderful, but a lot of people are wondering how effective C4C really was. Some argue that the program was a handout to car makers, that it was economically ineffective, that it increased consumer debt, or that it will create a price bubble for used cars.

There’s some truth in each of these claims, and policy makers are hopefully taking notes. Cash for Clunkers generated a lot of strong emotions. Even among environmentalists, there was spirited debate over the program. For example, ethanol lobbyists and wind turbine manufacturers opposed the program because it threatened their funding.

PE - Cash for clunkers - prius windmills 31766035_0ab3707b21_o
Photo courtesy of cluestream at Flickr.com

The Federal Cash For Clunkers program is also being blamed for distorting the value of carbon credits. Depending on the vehicles involved in the trade, the government set a carbon price of between $237 and $500 per ton. That compares with an average price of $5 to $40 per ton for carbon credits available on the open market.

Critics have argued that the low fuel efficiency requirements for replacement cars will have minimal impacts over the long term. Under the program, some trucks were replaced with other trucks that “only” received a 2 mpg improvement (18 mpg –> 20 mpg). That is more than a 10% improvement – and improving the mileage of a work truck has a much larger impact than improving the mileage of an economy car.

PE - Cash For Clunkers - crushed cars on a flatbed
Photo courtesy of shimonkey at Flickr.com

One of the strongest arguments about C4C is that the environmental impact of making new cars may be greater than the benefits provided by improved fuel efficiency. Mining ore, molding rubber, welding parts, and moving the finished product to showrooms are all processes that produce carbon emissions:

The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted to produce a new car has been estimated to range from about 3.5 to 12.5 tons, or an average of about 6.7 tons. So buying a new car means an extra 6.7 tons of CO2 emissions — you wouldn’t have emitted all that pollution had you just kept your old car.

Yet, the bulk of CO2 that a car releases comes from day to day operation:

According to a literature review by the Pacific Institute, somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the life-cycle carbon emissions of the average car come not from driving but from manufacturing and disposal.

The other 80-90% comes from driving. It doesn’t take a large increase in efficiency to make up for the carbon released in making a new vehicle.

So, is it worthwhile to replace the less fuel efficient cars with fuel sipping models? Does it produce more pollution to build the vehicles than it takes to operate older, less efficient engines? Setting up a formula is pretty simple – let’s say the 690,114 cars produced for C4C released average amounts of carbon dioxide. 690,114 x 6.7 tons = 4,623,763.8 tons of CO2. That’s how much Cash For Clunkers caused to be released.

On the other side of the equation is how much CO2 saved by getting gas guzzlers off of the road. The average American drives more than 13,000 miles per year. The vehicles that were replaced would have burned approximately 596,511,828 gallons of gasoline per year ((13,657 miles x 690,114 cars) / 15.8 mpg). The replacement cars would only burn 378,509,513 gallons ((13,657 miles x 690,114 cars) / 24.9 mpg). That’s 218,002,315 gallons saved per year.

Each gallon of gasoline that’s burned produces about 19.4 lbs of CO2. 19.4 lbs of CO2 is ~0.008799692 metric tons.

So, after all that math, C4C is currently reducing our CO2 emissions by approximately 1,918,353 tons per year. In less than 2 and a half years, the program will “pay” for itself in terms of CO2. The average passenger car is driven for 7 years or more, so over their lifetime, Cash For Clunkers vehicles will save approximately 13,428,471 tons of Carbon Dioxide.

With numbers this large, sometimes it helps to put them in perspective. A large elephant weighs approximately 6 tons, so 13,428,471 tons of carbon weighs more than 2 million elephants!

PE - Cash for clunkers - elephants under the bigtop
Photo courtesy of ECU Digital Collections at Flickr.com

CO2 isn’t the only pollutant that the program has reduced. It isn’t even the type of emission that new cars have the greatest impact on:

Older vehicles emit conventional air-pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, at rates as much as 100 times higher than newer vehicles, he says. That’s because they have less-sophisticated pollution controls and because emission levels tend to worsen as vehicles age.

Most of the greenhouse gas released in the US comes from other sources. We cause more pollution with coal power plants, oil refining, chemical extraction, and other industrial processes. So, the Cash For Clunkers reductions are really just a drop in the bucket:

…on average, every hour, America emits 728,000 tons of carbon dioxide. The total savings per year from cash for clunkers translates to about 57 minutes of America’s output of the chief greenhouse gas.

Cash for Clunkers isn’t going to solve our emissions problem. But it’s a start.

As a side note – $2B of funds were added to extend the Cash For Clunkers program. Unfortunately, those funds were taken from the $6B set aside for other green technology. This means that there will be less investment in wind turbines, energy efficiency upgrades, power storing devices, smart grids, and other uses that may have delivered more of an environmentally friendly bang-for-the-buck.

There are also plans to mirror the program with rebates for energy efficient appliances.

Photo courtesy of Uncle Bumpy at Flickr.com

What do you think about Cash For Clunkers? Would the money have been better spent on public transportation, alternative energy generation, research, or other uses? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Save the planet with motor oil

pe-save-the-planet-with-motor-oil-kendrak-fl
Photo courtesy of kendrak at Flickr.com

Eco-conscious drivers pay a lot of attention to how much gasoline their cars use, but what about the motor oil? When cars are properly maintained, they use far more gasoline than they do oil, and driving a car requires more trips to the gas station than the service station. An unfortunate side effect is that our attention is focused on gasoline and oil isn’t something that the average driver thinks about unless there’s a problem.

Let’s say that you’ve got your ducks in a row. You’re driving a fuel efficient car and getting the best mileage possible. Even if you’re a fuel frugal hypermiler, there are still a few things you can do with your oil to reduce your car’s impact on the planet.

Oil is not a generic product – there are oils with different viscosity, oils made from different sources, and oils with more endurance than others. Here’s a good primer on the different types of oil out there. Of note:

Group IV oils… flow more freely at extreme low temperatures and don’t break down at very high temperatures. As a side benefit, they generally can be specified one or two grades lighter than a mineral oil, which consumes less energy as friction inside the engine and saves fuel.

When was the last time you changed the oil in your car? 6 months ago? 5,000 miles ago? The frequency of oil changes can have a huge impact on the environment.

On the one hand, excessive oil changes are wasteful and use up a limited natural resource. On the other hand, changing oil infrequently can cause damage to a cars engine, increasing pollution from your engine and causing additional pollution from the factory that makes replacement parts. Finding that sweet spot is important.

The majority of drivers play it safe and change their oil more than necessary. Roughly 70% of drivers surveyed changed their oil too often. This results in excessive consumption of oil, magnifies disposal problems, and hurts the pocketbooks of drivers nationwide.

A major cause of this overconsumption is the idea that cars should have their oil changed every 3,000 miles. At the service station, mechanics often put a sticker on the windshield reminding drivers to return for their next oil change in 3,000 miles. When you see that sticker, bear in mind that it was put there by someone who will make money every time you buy more oil. Consumer Reports studied taxi cabs in New York City and found that extending the interval did not affect performance or wear on the engines. They also found that oil additives had no noticeable effect on engine wear or oil endurance.

There is no catch-all rule for drivers to follow – every car has different needs and requires oil changes at different intervals. Read the owners manual for the best information about your specific car, and follow its guidelines. If the manual suggests changing the oil every 7,500 miles, changing the oil every 3,000 miles will only drain your pocket book. Many cars now have an oil change sensor that will notify you when the oil needs to be swapped out.

About half of the oil changes in America are performed by do-it-yourself mechanics. Many drivers change their own oil, or rely on a friend who knows how to change oil. There’s a problem though – few people know about the harms caused by dumping their oil down the drain or bagging it up in the garbage.

Every year, more than 300 million gallons of used motor oil are disposed of improperly. Oil that ends up in the sewer or landfill often seeps out into the water table. Just one gallon of oil can contaminate 600,000 to one million gallons of fresh water. That’s enough drinking water to supply 50 people for a year! The amount of oil in an average car can contaminate 4 acres of farmland and make it useless for a century.

This is a big problem. Less than 5% of used oil is currently recycled. The majority of used oil is burned for fuel or dumped. That’s an easily preventable waste, because there are more than 30,000 oil recycling centers nationwide!

The best way to dispose of used motor oil is to take it to a chemical disposal facility. It’s easy to find a disposal location – find an oil recycling site near you at Earth911.com. By recycling the oil, you’ll reduce the need for drilling for oil and help protect local waterways from pollution.

pe-save-the-planet-with-motor-oil-spiritwood-images-fl
Photo courtesy of Spiritwood images at Flickr.com

In the news: Environmentally friendly legislation and programs

news-wallyg-fl
Photo courtesy of WallyG at Flickr.com

Here at the Practical Environmentalist, we’re green news junkies. We keep an eagle eye out for the latest science, social, and environmental developments and try to sum up the big picture. A lot of exciting things are going on right now, with recent legislation leading the way.

Many gardeners, ranchers, and farmers are concerned about a Food Safety Bill that’s pending in the House. There have been rumors that this legislation would redefine the word “organic”, or outlaw small scale farms, or make it impossible to grow heirloom seeds, or drive up the price of locally grown food. HR 875 has been the subject of message board arguments, blog punditry, and even chain mail. Before you call your Congressman and voice concerns, it’s important to do some fact checking about HR 875.

There’s also some interesting news about ethanol and biofuels production. The percentage of ethanol in gasoline is currently capped at 10% (E10), but Ag Secretary Vilsak is urging lawmakers to raise the amount of ethanol that’s allowed in transportation fuel. He’s calling for E12 gasoline, and we may see 15-20% ratios if the Environmental Protection Agency approves E15 or E20 gasoline. This move face opposition from equipment manufacturers who are worried that high ethanol blends may harm engines. Lawnmower and boat engines are particularly at risk.

Several states are making green news too. Michigan is offering scholarships to train unemployed and underemployed workers for green collar jobs – these Michigan Promise scholarships may help the state survive waves of layoffs in the automotive sector. The funds come from Tobacco settlements and are not at risk from the declining tax base in the state.

Illinois, California, Texas and other states are rushing to build transmission lines that will carry wind generated electricity from the countryside into the big city. A recently proposed line called the Green Power Express would run from the Dakotas into Chicago. This is one of many infrastructure projects that could pay dividends in reducing pollution and reducing dependence on foreign energy sources at the same time.

Private enterprise is also partnering with city and state governments to encourage energy saving projects. “Green Mortgage” programs allow homeowners to take advantage of the tax break on mortgage interest to finance energy saving additions and renovations to their homes. These programs will funnel money towards installing insulation and energy efficient windows, or replacing light bulbs with skylights and upgrading Energy Star appliances. In the process, they will generate manufacturing and construction jobs now while boosting energy efficiency of homes for decades to come.

Do you know of any other big green news? Feel free to share in the comments section below!

Green ways to travel

green-travel-vagawi-flicker
Photo courtesy of Saw You On The Flipside

For some people, travel is an unpleasant necessity. They travel to meet clients or commute. For other people, travel is a joy and the reason that they work. They save up money for vacations and sight seeing. Whether you’re in a hurry to get home or if you’re taking the chance to satisfy your wanderlust, there are plenty of opportunities to add some green to your itinerary.

From hiking boots to luxury jets, we have more transportation options today than ever before. Most travelers weigh these options based on comfort, price, and time. Yet an increasing number of adventurers and businesswomen are factoring in the environmental impact before they buy tickets.

When choosing transportation with a small carbon footprint, it’s important to compare apples to apples. One way to compare the environmental impact is using passenger miles. Passenger miles are calculated by taking the total fuel consumed and dividing by the number of passengers. For example, consider a car that gets 40 miles per gallon. If the driver is the only person in the car, then the driver is responsible for 19.4 pounds of CO2 for every 40 miles driven or 0.485 pounds per mile (19.4 / 40).

If we add a passenger with heavy bags, the car’s MPG will decrease slightly to about 39 MPG, but the amount of carbon dioxide generated will stay roughly the same. That footprint is spread out over 2 people instead of one. (19.4 / 2) / 39 = 0.249 pounds per mile. This is because so much of the energy used in moving a car is used to move the car itself.

In short, vehicles that travel full are more fuel efficient than empty vehicles, and passenger load can greatly affect the pollution produced per person. While trains are often more carbon efficient than buses, a fully loaded passenger bus may even be more efficient than a train. Then again, rail systems in some countries have the edge.

The most common way to compare different fuel sources is to use Miles Per Gallon equivalence (MPGe), but some fuel sources are dirtier than others. For example, generating 100,000 British Thermal Units (BTU) from coal will produce about 42 lbs of CO2, while natural gas will produce the same amount of energy while emitting about 14 lbs of CO2. So, a coal powered train may be more energy efficient than a natural gas powered bus, but it would produce more pollution to travel the same distance. Hard numbers for this “pollution efficiency” are difficult to pin down.

And that’s not all… some situations can magnify the effect of emissions. For example, pollution from airplanes is released in the upper atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, water vapor and other byproducts behave differently in the upper atmosphere than they do at ground level, multiplying their effects. For more information on this subject, look at how various scientists calculate the radiative forcing factor. As a rule of thumb, each pound of airplane emissions is about 2.8 times worse than emissions from other forms of transportation.

From lowest impact to highest impact, here is a rough guide to transportation options (including some data from the US Department of Energy Transportation Energy Data Book and manufacturer’s sites):

On foot / Walking
Bicycle
Horseback Riding
Rickshaw
Electric Motorcycle / Scooter
Vanpool or Shuttle (1,322 BTU per passenger mile)
Motorcycle (1,855 BTU per passenger mile)
Train (2,816 BTU per passenger mile)
Ultra Efficient Passenger Car (ie; a Prius)
Average Passenger Car (3,512 BTU per passenger mile)
Passenger Trucks/SUVs (3,944 BTU per passenger mile)
Bus (4,235 BTU per passenger mile)
Turboprop Passenger Plane (for short distances)
Fuel Efficient Passenger Jet (for long distances)
Piston Engine Passenger Plane
Older Passenger Jets
Small Prop Plane (ie; Van’s Aircraft’s RV-7: ~36 MPGe per passenger at full capacity)
Ferryboat
Helicopter (~20 MPGe per passenger at full capacity)
Cruise Ship (~17 MPGe per passenger at full capacity)
Motorboat (~15 MPGe per passenger at full capacity)
Jet Ski (~10 MPGe per passenger at full capacity)
Executive Jet (~0.8-5 MPGe per passenger at full capacity)

Are there any transportation methods that I’m missing? It’s hard to quantify the MPGe for a hang glider, sailboat, submarine, electric pogo stick, or jet pack, but if you have the scoop on how to rank an unusual form of locomotion, please drop a note in the comments at the bottom of this page.

So, how can you use this list? Before you book a trip or reserve a hotel room, make sure to check out all of the options that are available. Instead of flying cross country, do you have time to take the train? Instead of staying at a hotel across town from a conference, can you find a hotel within walking distance and skip the rental car?

A few more tips for carbon efficient travel…

  • Maximize the capacity of your vehicle: carpool, combine taxis, choose a party boat instead of a dozen jetskis
  • Travel light: ditch 2 suitcases and you may be able to fit another passenger in your car or cut your weight in half on an airplane
  • Choose direct flights: up to 80% of a plane’s fuel consumption happens during take-off and landing, flying direct also cuts out unnecessary miles in the air and, as a bonus, can reduce the amount of tax and airport fees charged
  • Pick fuel efficient cars, planes, and motorcycles: newer vehicles are often much more fuel efficient (ie: the 737-800 airplane gets about 35 percent better mileage per seat than the MD-80 it is replacing).
  • Make the captain a passenger: get certified to operate your own riverboat, learn to fly your own plane, or (if you have one) ditch the chauffeur back at the mansion
  • Often, the green choice will yield a more pleasant trip and save money at the same time!

    green-travel-svanes-flicker
    Photo courtesy of svanes

    Be green, and bank some green with these contests

    green-contests-tofurky-fl-shira-golding
    Photo courtesy of Shira Golding

    Earth Day has come and gone, but there are still a lot of contests going on that focus on environmentally friendly ideas. If you have green skills or an innovative idea, here are some fun contests that offer a chance to keep changing the world:

    Show Us Your Green Contest from Threadless T-Shirts:
    Prize: $3813.74 (and growing as more people participate)
    Method of entry: Digital Picture on Flickr or Tweetpic along with a typed description on Tweet
    Deadline: April 27, 2009

    Spring Dream Challenge from Lowes
    Prize: $301-2672 (different prize packs based on the entry category)
    Method of entry: YouTube video
    Deadline: May 3, 2009

    Escape to Alaska or Bust Contest from Alaska Wildland Adventures
    Prize: 8 Day / 7 Night Lodge stay with a wildlife expedition
    Method of entry: Up to 33,000 characters in essay format
    Deadline: May 22, 2009

    The Green Effect Contest by Frito Lay’s SunChips & National Geographic
    Prize: $20,000 to spend on a green cause
    Method of entry: 100-250 word proposal for improve the environment, with up to 4 pictures in support and up to 3 minutes of video explanation
    Deadline: June 8, 2009

    How are you spending Earth Hour on March 28th?

    earth-hour-earth-hour-global-fl
    Photo courtesy of Earth Hour Global at Flickr.com.

    Once a year, environmentalists around the world turn out the lights for an hour. This year, Earth Hour falls on Saturday, March 28th, and many different homes, offices, and government buildings are taking part. The organizers of Earth Hour hope to raise awareness of how much energy we waste with inefficient lighting systems. For one hour a year, everyone can take part and see the beauty of the natural sky that’s lost due to light pollution.

    The World Wildlife Fund and other environmental organizations are hard at work planning activities for Earth Hour 2009, ranging from star watching and recycling events to tree plantings and slumber parties. Find an Earth Hour event nearby, or if there aren’t any, you can plan one yourself with help from the Earth Hour Facebook group!

    Now’s the time to raise your voice and take part. Are businesses and government offices in your town participating in Earth Hour? Check the latest Earth Hour news, and if City Hall isn’t taking part, now is a good time to ask pointed questions of your elected officials. While they’re on the line, why not ask about steps that the city is taking to retrofit energy efficient devices into public buildings and legislation that improves local air quality?

    Maybe it’s time to re-evaluate how we destroy the night sky for the other 8,765 hours of the year…
    light-pollution-fyngyrz-fl
    Photo courtesy of fyngyrz at Flickr.com.

    How to plant a victory garden

    victory-garden-sunfell-fl
    Photo courtesy of Sunfell at Flickr.com.

    Everything old is new again. This is doubly true for trends that never went completely out of fashion, like vinyl records and Victory Gardens. Originally conceived during World War I as a way to ensure food supplies for troops, these community gardens took off in a big way during the second World War. By 1944, up to 40% of the vegetables on American tables came from a Victory Garden.

    Now, with the rising price of staple foods, increasing awareness of the environmental cost of industrial farming, and increased interest in self sufficiency and independence, Victory Gardens are making a serious comeback. The Smithsonian Institute has a new exhibit on Victory Gardens, and vegetable rows are replacing ornamental bushes nationwide.

    Modern-day Victory Gardens look a little different – gardeners are now blogging about their successes and even using Twitter to send gardening updates!

    Success with Victory Gardens is snowballing into more awareness of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). Urban food pantries are stocking up with fresh fruit gleaned from “ornamental” trees. Believe it or not, some HOA’s are embracing community gardens. There’s even a campaign to start a Victory Garden on the White House lawn:

    Benefits of a victory garden:

    • Cut grocery bills
    • Gain access to fresher food
    • Boost vitamins in your diet
    • Increase the health of your soil
    • Insure against food shortages
    • Reduce exposure to pesticides and other chemicals
    • Avoid disease (or ensure access to your favorite veggies if an outbreak occurs)
    • Preserve oil supplies / reduce dependence on foreign oil
    • Grow produce for sale or gifts

    So, let’s say that you’ve been bitten by the Victory Gardening bug. Where to begin?

    It can be a bit daunting to start your first Victory Garden. There’s a lot to learn about soil, planting seasons, and local weather conditions. Hit the books! The library is a good place to start – a little bit of research can go a long way in getting the best results. As the old saying goes, an ounce of preparation is worth a pound of perspiration. Your state’s Extension Office can also be a good source of information and expert advice.

    Try looking for help from your neighbors – local gardening clubs often know the best times to plant and which species do best in your area. Find a local Gardening MeetUp, and you’ll find a pool of knowledge and maybe even people willing to lend you seeds or cuttings from their favorite plants. No matter which plants you choose, PBS is a great resource for beginner gardeners.

    In the past, Victory Gardens were all laid out from a universal template. That didn’t work out very well for people who tried to grow the same plants in California as they did in Maine and Florida. Instead of a cookie cutter layout, you should tailor your garden to local conditions. Work with your climate to choose the best plants. For example, even if you love rice, it may not make sense to grow rice if you live in the middle of the desert.

    We’ve learned a lot in the last 50 years, and it’s easier to start a vegetable garden in your yard than ever before. Incorporate this knowledge in the layout and composition of your victory garden, and you can achieve amazing results. Our grandparents didn’t have much practical experience on designing to minimize erosion or using cover crops that naturally fertilize the soil, but there’s a wealth of useful information on these techniques. Here are some other research topics that you might want to consider:

    Even if you have limited space or no yard, Victory Gardens can be grown in containers and indoor planters. Hanging planters can turn any patio or balcony into a vertical garden.

    If you don’t have a patio, many plants will thrive in window planters or grow boxes. There are also light boxes and grow lights that can turn the deepest, darkest basement into an oasis of life. Indoor plants not only make rooms beautiful – they also can help reduce sick building syndrome by providing fresh air and absorbing indoor pollutants.

    Not a gardener? No problem. There are entrepreneurs eager to turn other people’s yards into gardens. Also, there are other steps you can take to promote food safety and sustainability.

    victory-garden-mentalmasala-fl
    Photo courtesy of mental.masala at Flickr.com.

    Boost gas mileage with LRR tires

    tires-negaro_uk-fl
    Photo courtesy of Negaro UK at Flickr.com.

    For years, auto designers have been using wind tunnels to improve car designs. Wind tunnels make it easy to see how different features affect aerodynamics. Hoods, spoilers, and even mirrors have been engineered and re-engineered due to wind tunnel testing. This is because friction consumes roughly 80% of all gasoline that’s used while driving. By reducing friction, wind tunnel tests improve gas mileage and boost performance.

    There’s one thing that wind tunnels miss though – the friction between a car’s tires and the road. This overlooked detail has gained new attention recently. Due to tightened CAFE standards, many cars now come standard with tires that improve gas mileage.

    Expected improvements are in the 1-2mpg range in highway driving, depending on the vehicle and the previously specified factory tire. The gains aren’t enormous, but as Scott Miller, GM’s vehicle performance manager for full-size hybrid trucks said, “Every bit helps.”

    Unfortunately, these factory issue tires are often replaced with gas hogging aftermarket tires. What makes some tires get better mileage than others? It’s all about friction, or “rolling resistance”. Rolling resistance is a measurement of how much friction a tire produces. Tires with low rolling resistance (LRR) convert less energy into heat and noise.

    So, what’s the trade off?
    In the automotive world, there’s never a free lunch, and low rolling resistance tires are no exception. There are certain trade-offs that come with reduced rolling resistance. In order to minimize rolling resistance, LRR tires are designed with less surface area in contact with the road. That saves gas, but it also reduces traction and increases stopping distances.

    Tires with low rolling resistance are stiffer and flex less. This means LRR tires can feel uncomfortable because they provide less cushion on rough roads. Some LRR tires are also less durable and wear out after 30,000-40,000 miles. They are also slightly more expensive than other tires, but they can save money over the life of the tire (the savings can be substantial on cars with low MPG ratings).

    How do you actually find tires with low rolling resistance?

    This is where things get tricky. Tire companies have been slow to report the rolling resistance ratings on their tires. Rolling resistance values vary based on the testing situations (different cars produce different rolling resistance values), so a raw number isn’t meaningful to all customers. Also, the testing process can be time consuming. Here’s how Bridgestone responded when we inquired about why rolling resistance is not listed on their website (emphasis added):

    Rolling resistance has traditionally been measured thru SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) test procedure called J1269. It measures the force required to roll a tire against a dynamometer at a fixed speed of 50 mph. Within Bridgestone/Firestone, we have over 1,300 passenger and light truck products in the Bridgestone line alone and, conceivably, each one could have a different rolling resistance. The tread compound is a major factor, but construction, size, and even tread pattern can have an influence. At least 3 tires must be run in each configuration to get a good average. At approximately 1 hour per rolling resistance test, this amounts to 3,900 hours or over 6 months just to run the Bridgestone brand.

    This explains why these values are estimated. We have some data, however it frequently does not line up with those sizes or patterns requested. Therefore, estimation is required.

    The weight of the tire will have some affect on gas mileage. What is more of a factor, though, is the tire “footprint”. This term refers to the actual area where the “rubber meets the road”. The same size tires may have different contact areas and therefore different gas mileage implications. More rubber coming in contact with the road can create increased rolling resistance. Generally, taller, narrower tires are better for fuel economy, if you retain your current wheels. Increasing the tire aspect ratio, for instance from 70 to 75, will provide additional load carrying capacity.

    Your local mechanic may be slightly more helpful, but don’t count on it. Right now, the best way to find a tire with low rolling resistance is to find a chat board dedicated to your car and surf the wisdom of the crowds. There are also several non-comprehensive lists of LRR tires, but they may not be available in your area and the lists quickly become outdated as new models are introduced.

    Hopefully, this situation will change soon. A California law went into effect in 2008 that requires all companies to list RR ratings for replacement tires sold in the state. As more people become aware of green tires, there will be rising demand. This demand will drive innovation and may also bring prices down. In the near future, we may even see a Green Seal on tires with Low Rolling Resistance, just like the Energy Star label on appliances.

    The spike in gas prices in 2008 has focused attention on several ways to improve mileage without adopting radical technologies, and low rolling resistance tires are only one of several inexpensive ways to get significant improvements.

    Before you go out and buy new tires, there are several ways to reduce the rolling resistance of your current set. Start by removing any excess weight from your car – all that junk in the trunk is pressing the tires down against the road and increasing the contact area. Also, check the air pressure on your current wheels:

    The easiest way to reduce rolling resistance… is to make certain that the tires are properly inflated. A vehicle that requires its tires to be inflated to 35 psi (based on the vehicle’s tire placard) will have an increase in rolling resistance of approximately 12.5% if the tires are allowed to become underinflated to just 28 psi.

    tires-tamaki-fl
    Photo courtesy of Tamaki at Flickr.com.

    The latest news on carbon credits

    carbon-offsets-azure-bleu-fl
    Photo courtesy of Azure Bleu at Flickr.com.

    The Kyoto treaty is in the news again as the Obama administration considers implementing a cap and trade system for carbon dioxide. It turns out that a lot of participating countries have fallen short of their Kyoto commitments, and are now required to purchase approximately $46 Billion of carbon credits to make-up for surplus CO2 production. This could mean that the price of carbon credits is about to spike upwards from their current low levels.

    So, what exactly is a cap-and-trade system?
    Cap and trade is a regulatory framework for controlling the emission of carbon dioxide and other pollutants that affect the climate. It is one of several proposed systems, with the largest alternative being a carbon tax. The cap in cap-and-trade refers to a limit set on the level of emissions. This cap can be company specific, region specific, national, or international. When participants spend more than their allotment, they can trade credit with other participants who haven’t produced as much as their allowed.

    What are carbon credits?
    Carbon credits are warrants that represent carbon neutralizing behavior (ie; maintaining a forest, sequestering carbon underground, or breaking down greenhouse gases). In some countries, factories and power plants are required to purchase carbon credits that offset their pollution. These vouchers are used to fund the development of clean technology and conservation, and they also make green business practices more competitive by putting a price tag on externalities. A cap and trade system promotes land conservation by placing a value on pristine wilderness areas. In turn, this reduces carbon emissions by deterring development.

    Many different companies offer carbon credits and carbon offsets. If you’re interested in purchasing some for your personal use, there are plans that you can use to neutralize the impact of a plane trip, counterbalance your home’s expenditures, or to offset your daily commute. Here’s a price survey of various companies that offer carbon credits.

    carbon-offsets-dianne-pike-fl
    Photo courtesy of Dianne Pike at Flickr.com.

    There are concerns with how carbon credits are computed. Critics argue that carbon credits are often miscalculated, that they’re rewarded for projects that were going to be built anyway, or that the expense is not justified by the results. A recent report by the US General Accounting Office offers some support to these criticisms. Projects that have applied for carbon accreditation under the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) were found to have serious problems. Several of these projects involved displacing Chinese farmers to build hydroelectric dams, and construction on some of the dams had even been underway before the project managers asked for carbon credits.

    The end users of carbon credits are increasingly demanding third-party validation. In order for carbon credits to be more than modern-day indulgences, there are some important stipulations that need to be met. The carbon savings must be measurable, unique, and independently verifiable. This prevents unscrupulous carbon dealers from selling non-existent credits or selling the same credits over and over again. In the terminology of the Clean Development Mechanism, only actions that provide “additionality” are eligible for carbon credits:

    If I buy carbon offsets, I make the implicit claim that I forgo reducing my own emissions (i.e. I still fly) but in exchange I pay someone to reduce their emission in my stead. If I buy carbon offsets to “neutralize” the emissions I caused during air travel from someone who would have reduced their emissions anyway, regardless of my payment, I, in effect, have not only wasted my money, but I also have not neutralized my emissions.

    Currently, the majority of projects applying for CDM accreditation involve hydroelectricity. There are only a finite number of suitable rivers in the world though, so future savings will have to come from new techniques and green technologies. Microturbines fueled by waste are one of the largest areas of potential growth, and US companies are spearheading development in that area.

    San Antonio recently became the first city to deploy a power plant that uses methane from sewage to generate power. Burning this renewable resource is a clean solution, because methane has more than 20 times the impact on climate change that carbon dioxide does. There’s no word yet on whether San Antonio is applying for carbon credits on this project, but it’s certainly more useful than methane flare projects that are already cashing in.

    Several states are pursuing a different tactic to reduce their carbon footprint; they’re attempting to reduce overall power use. A California law is now in effect that requires all state facilities to reduce their energy use by 20%. There have been some unexpected results. In addition to new systems at government offices and service centers, Corrections facilities around the state have also been forced to go green. California’s not alone; many prison facilities nationwide are adapting energy saving technology. From prison gardens that use compost to water boilers that burn wood waste, cleantech is saving thousands of dollars and introducing prison populations to some innovations that were originally developed for the Hollywood elite. With state budgets feeling a pinch, how long do you think it will be before San Quentin starts selling carbon offsets?

    carbon-offsets-mrglusniffer-fl
    Photo courtesy of MrGluSniffer at Flickr.com.

    US states are moving towards a cap and trade system for CO2 emissions

    smokestack-fl-atomicshark
    Photo courtesy of AtomicShark at Flickr.com.

    The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative held its second auction for carbon credits in December. This was the first auction where all 10 states in the initiative took part, and the sale price rose about 10 percent from the previous auction in September, 2008.

    These carbon credits have some bite to them; the auction wasn’t just a public relations affair for the local utilities. The northeast is attempting to achieve a major shift in carbon dioxide emissions. Greenhouse gasses from power plants in these 10 Northeastern states are capped at current levels from January 1, 2009 until 2014. Then, the cap will drop 2.5% a year until 10% reductions are hit in 2018.

    Now that the carbon cap is in effect, utilities that use coal or natural gas to generate electricity will have to buy carbon credits to offset their pollution. They are likely to pass along the cost to consumers, which will drive up the price of dirty electricity and help make alternative energy sources more competitive. Regional cap and trade systems have already proven effective at reducing Nitrogen Oxide emissions, and policy makers hope to have similar success with reducing carbon. Funds raised from the carbon auction are earmarked for efficiency improvements, building alternative power sources on government buildings, and eliminating emissions from non-powerplant sources.

    The RGGI isn’t the only regional group working on a cap and trade system. In the middle of the country, the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord is developing a system that will cover Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, and the Canadian Province of Manitoba. Other western states and Canadian Provinces formed their own group, the Western Climate Initiative. WCI membership includes Arizona, British Columbia, California, Manitoba, Montana, New Mexico, Ontario, Oregon, Quebec, Utah, and Washington State.

    Some states are tackling emissions on their own. California passed laws in 2006 to reduce CO2 emissions by 20%, and is considering ways to extend the reach of those laws into neighboring states. California plans to roll out a Cap and Trade system by 2012, and the state budget crisis may accelerate the process. A carbon credit auction would raise desperately needed revenue for California, but there’s concern that the money would be squandered instead of spent on reducing emissions.

    Federal action is also expected in the near future. The President-Elect, Speaker of the House, and other national leaders have publicly spoken in favor of a cap and trade system. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency is facing pressure to treat CO2 as a pollutant. The EPA recently published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to regulate agricultural emissions of greenhouse gas.

    Some surprising voices have also spoken out against cap and trade carbon systems. A small number of utilities and businesses who use large volumes of electricity have raised concerns about the costs, but some environmentalists are also skeptical of the concept. There’s a concern that carbon credits don’t actually reduce total emissions, and that flaws in the systems can allow polluters to play a shell game with their emissions. Another concern is that the system wont achieve it’s goals of reducing emissions. The cap and trade system in Europe has been plagued by politics and lobbying, and emissions have risen since it was introduced.

    Even with these concerns, the US looks likely to move ahead on efforts to reduce carbon production. Many changes are on their way, and some will arrive sooner than others.

    powerplantcollapse-fl-bytepusher
    Photo courtesy of bytepusher at Flickr.com.

    Green news is good news (mostly)


    Photo courtesy of Ted Abbott at Flickr.com.

    A lot of news about the environment lately has been good news – there are huge solar arrays being built, energy efficiency is improving by leaps and bounds, and more people are recycling today than even knew what recycling was 20 years ago. But, there’s some bad news on the environmental desk too.

    For starters, the ailing economy is threatening to undermine recycling programs nationwide. Demand for commodities has fallen so quickly that we have a surplus of many raw materials, and those surplus materials are exerting negative price pressure on recycled ingredients. Don’t worry though – runaway inflation in the first quarter of 2009 should “solve” those problems.

    A controversy is brewing in the world of organic food. Several large organic suppliers have been caught using unapproved farming techniques in their overseas operations, and the FDA is reviewing their certification. This is a little bit of a good news / bad news situation, because the problem was caught before harm was inflicted and it’s a sign that the internal reviews are working to catch abuse.

    A lot of politicians are burning the midnight oil before their terms in office expire, and this means that some poorly crafted laws, rules, and regulations are on the way. One of the most worrisome developments is that the Endangered Species Act is being undermined by rule changes within the Fish and Wildlife Department. The department has assigned only 15 people to review more than 200,000 unique comments… that means a lot of comments are going to be brushed off and ignored, and that the rule changes will likely face a legal challenge.

    Okay, now on to the good news.

    With automakers begging Congress for a bailout, there’s a lot of attention focused on their business plans. Last year, they were offered a $25 Billion line of credit to develop fuel efficient cars, and these green strings have been cut from the older loan. Just to confuse things, the Big 3 are asking for another $34 Billion dollars to fund their operations, which really makes you wonder if they forgot about the treat they were already given. Now that the funds have been released for GM, Ford, and Chrysler to use at their discretion, there’s still a good chance that some of the money will be used to make fuel efficiency improvements. Consumer preferences have shifted towards improved mileage, but there’s no consensus about how green the cars of the future will be.

    There are a lot of competing standards for determining the “greenest car” on the road. Some carmakers stress miles driven per gallon of fuel, while others focus on the grams of CO2 emitted per mile driven, or the amount of smog causing particulates that are released. These competing claims can be very confusing, and the confusion allows some car makers to greenwash their dirtier vehicles with misleading claims. Until recently, there hasn’t been a clear mechanism to weigh the eco-credentials of competing cars. Now though, the Environmental Protection Agency has created a new standard that combines air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The new SmartWay Certification Program, is designed to highlight best in class vehicles just as the EnergyStar rating system highlights efficient appliances. Honda was able to secure the first top rating for a vehicle – they earned Smartway Elite certification with their Honda Civic Hybrid and the Honda GX (a natural gas powered car). Hopefully, American car manufacturers are following close behind.

    Cars are raising environmental awareness in other ways too. Daniel Bowman Simon and Casey Gustowarow are driving cross country to gather signatures for the White House Organic Farm petition. The bus was donated by Ben Cohen (of Ben and Jerry’s fame) and has a very unusual container garden built into the roof. If you see a strange bus that looks like it had a collision with another bus and kept driving, ask for Daniel or Casey.

    To bring this post full circle, here’s some good news about recycling. If you still have any McCain, Obama, or other political signs sitting around from election 2008, don’t throw them out. Waste management experts have found a way to recycle corrugated plastic campaign signs!

    Can lighting a match help the environment?

    Photo courtesy of green lit at Flickr.com. Even if you have a high-tech, earth friendly toilet, how many times have you heard someone say “Light a candle” after you use the bathroom? Not only does lighting a candle reduce the unpleasant smell, but it also burns up a lot of stinky hydrogen sulfide as well as odorless methane gas. Methane is the second worst gas causing climate change, responsible for climate change, and it has a much stronger heat trapping effect than CO2:

    Molecule for molecule, methane gas is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a warming agent. However, since methane doesn’t stay in the atmosphere as long – around 12 years, on average, compared to a hundred years for CO2 – and human activities do not produce all that much of it, concerns about climate change have mostly been focused on carbon dioxide. The one big worry was that warmer temperatures might cause massive releases of methane from natural sources.

    Burning up the stink not only reduces the greenhouse effect but it can also reduce some friction in your household. That said, be careful with matches. Don’t burn a candle if your bathroom always smells funky – that could be a sign that explosive sewer gas is leaking into your house from the pipes. Also, don’t spray any deodorant before lighting that match. No one wants to find out the hard way that fire and aerosol cans are an explosive mix. Photo courtesy of Poet for Life at Flickr.com.

    News that has nothing to do with Election 2008


    Photo courtesy of ecupaintingguild at Flickr.com.

    With all the news coverage focused on the election, there are a lot of important and/or awesome things that have escaped attention. Here’s a quick overview of environmental news that’s worth following:

    First off, it’s common to get a craving for pumpkin pie around this time every year. But it would take hundreds of people to eat a pie made from this enormous 1,900 lb pumpkin. This behemoth is expected to set a new record for giant pumpkins (a record that has grown bigger every year in recent memory). Maybe this is the monster that Charlie Brown’s been waiting for.

    I’m sure that pumpkin wasn’t grown naturally, but no one tried to stick an organic label on it at the store. On the other hand, some businesses have been caught making false environmental claims to sell their products. It can be challenging to tell greenwashed products apart from their legitimate green competitors, but one way to make informed choices is to research the companies involved. Many large companies now publish yearly ‘Corporate Sustainability Reports’ that describe their environmental track record. Corporations are also assigning a dedicated board member to oversee environmental performance. Many of the pro-environment changes that companies are adopting also contribute to the bottom line, and make great economic sense while money is in short supply.

    On a related note, the credit crunch is slowing down plans to build new wind farms. Even though wind power accounted for about a third of all new power capacity built last year, the credit climate is making it really hard to line up investors. Wind energy is also running into some problems of scale. Windy days in Washington state are causing salmon deaths in a weird series of unintended consequences. As the wind picks up, wind turbines generate more and more electricity. The excess electricity floods the transmission lines, and automatic controls kick in to shutdown other sources of power. In some cases, this causes hydroelectric dams to idle their turbines and dump water over spillways. If only there was an efficient interstate transmission system, or a better way to store electricity, this whole chain of events could be avoided.

    But what if we lived in a world without any need for a power grid? Bloom Technologies is trying to create a lower pollution future based on efficiencies of micro-scale. With small fuel cells, the company hopes to eliminate power loss from transmission lines and bring electricity to the third world. As a bonus, they are designing fuel cells that produce hydrogen as a byproduct – that waste gas could be used to warm homes and fuel vehicles.

    Whether cars burn hydrogen or gasoline, tailpipe emissions are pretty much inevitable. This waste product has something that is surprisingly useful though – untapped energy in the form of heat. Researchers are developing new thermoelectric systems that can harvest electricity from tailpipe emissions. If they can keep cost and weight to a minimum, these devices will likely be incorporated into a wide range of hybrid vehicles to boost mileage. The energy recovery isn’t 100 percent, but it can really add up to a serious boost in efficiency:

    GM researcher Jihui Yang said a metal-plated device that surrounds an exhaust pipe could increase fuel economy in a Chevrolet Suburban by about 5 percent, a 1-mile-per-gallon improvement that would be even greater in a smaller vehicle.


    Photo courtesy of fensterbme at Flickr.com.

    Queen of England plans array of offshore wind turbines, including biggest turbine ever built

    Her Majesty -FLA
    Photo courtesy of ceebee23 at Flickr.com.

    The Queen of England once enjoyed direct rule over 2/3 of the earth’s surface. Her personal authority is a bit less these days, but she still has control over the territorial waters of Great Britain. And, with the backing of the Crown Estate, Queen Elizabeth II can afford to do some really impressive things in her domain. Like building an array of offshore windmills, including the biggest individual windmill in the world.

    Her Majesty’s windmill will produce 7.5 megawatts, which is more than twice as much as the previous record holder (GE’s 3.6 MW Offshore Turbine). The company that’s producing the turbine is Clipper Windpower, based in California. They have a proven history building monster wind turbines – including the largest turbine built in the US: the 2.5 MW Liberty Turbine. Details are still being worked out about where the giant wind turbine will be produced, and how it will be shipped to England.

    The average British person uses 10-15 kilowatts per day (half of the average American energy consumption), which means that on a windy day this monster turbine will meet the needs of roughly 500-750 people. And the British Crown plans to build multiple turbines, all far out to sea. Many will be invisible to people on land, but the biggest windmill in the world will be nearly 600 feet tall and should be visible for about 18-19 miles.

    Windmill array -FL
    Photo courtesy of yakkerDK at Flickr.com.

    Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008

    H.R. 6049 (warning, PDF) was passed today: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 which gives us tax incentives to the tune of 18 billion dollars for

    “investment in renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects, energy efficiency and conservation”.

    It also provides for extensions on expiring tax breaks, 37 billion worth, that have absolutely nothing to do with Renewable energy. I support most of them, but come on…It’s hard enough to get these things passed as it is.

    The bill grants an extension on the “placed in service date” for a number of types of renewable and alternative energy services receiving a tax break in the previous bill that were set to expire and extends the tax credits available to solar, fuel and micro-turbines and extends this credit to public utilities.

    In addition, the bill extends the credit for residential solar till the end of 2014

    On the transportation front (I’m a car guy, so this is where it matters to me) we get an expansion of benefits for cellulosic alcohol, biodiesel production including a greater credit for B100 over blends.

    We get a new plug in electric vehicle credit, some incentives on improvements on big trucks, fringe benefits for bicycle commuters, and tax breaks for alternative refueling stations until 2010.

    All in all it’s a good bill, and it passed but a surprising number of our representatives voted against it. In fact, here you can find out if your congresscritter voted for it, and here for your senator. If you disagree with their vote, let them know.

    Pollution makes you fat?

    Photo courtesy of Joe_13 at Flickr.com.

    Pollution has been blamed for a wide variety of health ailments, including heart disease, asthma, various forms of cancer, and toxic shock. New evidence suggests that pollution may also be contributing to the worldwide obesity epidemic. The research focused on a particular pesticide (Hexachlorobenze) and monitored babies from birth until the age of 6 and a half years old. It found a sharp increase in obesity rates for children with the highest exposure to HCB.

    This study suggests very strongly that exposure to HCB in the womb causes an increased risk of obesity. The mechanism is unknown, but exposure to chemicals can trigger the expression of certain genes, and chemical exposure can also alter the blood chemistry of women who are pregnant. This study is worrisome because even though HCB has been banned, there are many similar chemicals that we’re exposed to every day in our cosmetics, drinking water, and food supply.

    Experiments have shown that many chemicals fed to pregnant animals cause their offspring to grow up obese. These include organotins, long employed in antifouling paints on ships and now widely found in fish; bisphenol A (BPA), used in baby bottles and to line cans of food, among countless other applications; and phthalates, found in cosmetics, shampoos, plastics to wrap food, and in a host of other everyday products.

    These pollutants – dubbed “obesogens” as a result of these findings – are so ubiquitous that almost everyone now has them in their bodies. Ninety-five per cent of Americans excrete BPA in their urine; 90 per cent of babies have been found to be exposed to phthalates in the womb; and every umbilical cord analysed in the new Spanish study was found to contain organchlorine pesticides such as HCB.

    It’s important to remember that correlation doesn’t guarantee causation. For example, ice cream sales and deaths from drowning both increase during the summer, but it would be ridiculous to say that reducing ice cream sales would save people from drowning. More study is clearly needed.

    In the meantime, there are some fruits and vegetables that are much more likely to contain pesticides. You may want to cut down your consumption of peaches, strawberries, sweet bell peppers, apples, and other heavily contaminated foods, and instead substitute foods with lower pesticide exposure, such as sweet corn, avocados, onions, mangoes, and pineapples. If you can’t live without your peaches, organic produce is available for many of the highest risk items.

    Photo courtesy of fwickafwee at Flickr.com.

    Hybrid only parking – coming to a parking lot near you!



    Photo courtesy of Jumbo Jack at Flickr.com.

    Ikea, Home Depot, and the Green Exchange are just a few businesses that now offer preferred parking for hybrid owners. Apparently, IKEA’s Canadian stores offered hybrid only parking spots for more than a year… so it wont be long before we start seeing more and more of these spots in choice locations at the front of parking lots.

    Hybrid cars not only use less fuel (and pay less fuel tax per mile driven) but they also get to ride in the HOV lane here in Dallas. Other cities offer free parking spots, discounts on city meters, or immunity from anti-congestion fees. All these incentives add up, and just might have something to do with the decline in sales for gas guzzlers.

    Cynics have pointed out that many hybrid drivers get special treatment because they are often in the upper 5% income racket, but I’ve got a simple gauge for whether something is a good idea. If a certain course of action makes the mouthbreathers furious, then that’s a good policy.



    Photo courtesy of Bob_2006 at Flickr.com.

    The best and latest green news


    Photo courtesy of
    sterkworks at Flickr.com.

    Here at the Practical Environmentalist, we’re green news junkies. We keep an eagle eye out for the latest science, social, and environmental developments and try to sum up the big picture here. This week, a lot of exciting things are going on.

    Not everyone who wants to eat local food has time to garden. That’s why a new breed of entrepreneurs are ready to help you out by managing your garden. They’re like executive chefs, but more hardcore.

    An unusual new power plant is going up in Indiana. With an output of only 1.6 megawatts, the first phase of this electrical turbine isn’t going to power the entire eastern seaboard, but it is one of several new power plants that generate power using methane from garbage.
    That’s equivalent to:

    — Removal of emissions equivalent to over 22,000 cars per year, or
    — Planting about 27,000 acres of forest annually, or
    — Creating enough energy to power more than 2,000 homes per year

    Computers contain some pretty toxic chemicals, and e-waste is a major problem we’ve blogged about before. Many companies are working from the other side of the issue and trying to produce greener computer components.

    Climate change and invasive species threaten to destroy some of the most beautiful places on Earth. Here’s a list of endangered places to visit before they’re gone. If you do have the means to visit these places, please consider donating to local conservation groups.

    Due to high oil prices, reduced gas consumption is resulting in shortfalls in the Federal Highway Fund at the same time that Congress is focused on rising road maintenance costs. What does that mean?

    Well, for starters, we can expect more toll roads. And here’s a cruel irony: the increased use of mass transit may cause a cut in funding for mass transit.

    US Bureau of Land Management Reverses Anti-Solar decision

    A few months back the US Bureau of Land Management announced a two year halt to granting permits for solar farm development on federal lands.  The bureau had expressed concern about the possible unknown effects of large footprint solar farms on wildlife in undeveloped areas. 

    As an environmentally aware individual, I can certainly appreciate that a little caution is warranted. But the effects of high pollution methods of generating electrical power are far from unknown.  We are in a crisis situation where we need to be exploring every reasonable option. 

    The Bureau of Land Management administers more than 250 million acres of land in the US, much of it is perfect for solar farms and wind farms.  We are not talking about carving up Yellowstone, or drilling for oil in pristine tundra.  There is a lot of land in more desolate areas that solar and wind farms can be installed without adversely effecting the natural ecosystem anywhere near the impact of the current dirty methods of power generation.

    In response the public reaction tothe moratorium on solar the BLM has reversed it decision and will once again be accepting applications.  The BLM will still be closely monitoring the environmental impact of the new sites. 

    In a press release here

    “The BLM has a longstanding commitment to advancing renewable energy development,” added Caswell. In 2005 the BLM completed a PEIS for wind energy development on public lands and recently published for public comment a Draft PEIS on geothermal energy development. These efforts and the current solar energy initiative will facilitate opportunities for renewable energy development on the public lands.