Green Tech Girl

Here’s an interesting comment I just stumbled across on the Internet recently:

“Carbon offsets” have for some time now seemed to me to be the same as “Rape credits”.

The two concepts seem basically identical to me. With “carbon offsets” someone is paid to do something like plant trees somewhere that “breath in” carbon thus counteracting the damage (or supposed damage anyway, but that is another matter) done by increased carbon from all Al’s guzzling. “Rape credits” would be the very same idea. Al Gore could go around raping large numbers of women but pay money to some outfit, probably one that Al Gore got “dividends” from, and they would donate money to rape crisis hotlines and centers and councilors who would undue some of the damage. Maybe they could undue on average half the damage per rape victim, so rapist Al would have to make two donations for every woman he raped.

Hmm. Interesting analogy. What do you think? Do you think carbon credits are like “rape credits”? I certainly see the point of not using carbon offsets as a justification for trampling over the environment, but it’s better to have carbon credits than nothing at all.

So what is worse for the environment? Amazon.com’s Kindle e-book reader, which ends up creating e-waste when all is said and done? Or paper books, which obviously use up a heck of a lot of paper?

I’m not entirely certain an electronic book reader is all that much better than paper books environmentally speaking. I’m sure the statistics on book-making are staggering when it comes to trees and whatnot, but what about the batteries, electronic ink, plastic, and other toxic goodies that go into a Kindle? At least when you are done with a book, you can give it to someone else to read. When your Kindle is done, i.e., the thing has fried and no longer works, it’s off to the landfill, no easy way to recycle.

Mike Adams over at Natural News has another gripe with Kindle – Amazon.com can control the content and delete your books for whatever the reason. And you know, that is enough of a reason to have a hardbound copy of books that are truly important to you.

Mike’s solution to the problem, however, is to buy up books, rip them apart, scan them in, and create your own e-books. But really…this is not a good environmental move…just look at what’s involved:

I have a much better solution for consumers: Just buy the books at a local bookstore, chop off the binders, scan them and OCR them into text files. Then you can read them on any device (such as a Sony Reader, or your laptop, or whatever).

Of course, it’s a big operation: A good book binding chopper costs $1500 – $2000. A good double-sided scanning machine that can handle large books costs another $3000 or so. Decent OCR software costs another $300, and then you have to go through the song and dance of actually OCRing the files on a Windows computer somewhere. Not many people are willing to go through this trouble to read some books. But I am. Of course, I have other uses for the same equipment, so it’s easier for me to justify. Today, I have more than 1,500 books that I’ve scanned into text files. They all fit on an SD card that plugs right into a Sony Reader. (This is what I carry with me when I travel.)

OK, Mike, that is total overkill! You know, I don’t travel that much, but generally, one book or two is sufficient. Certainly not 1,500. Your mileage may vary.

I have seen Kindles in action and they do look pretty tempting though. If they can come up with one that’s not perpetually tethered to the mother company, I might be interested for certain types of books and other applications. Otherwise, I am happy with my old-fashioned hard-bound books, seeing as I’m not sure that going either way is environmentally “better.”

I’ve avoided bleach for sometime, but there are certain things that it’s just best for, such as whitening a stained white shirt, or cleaning up dirty grout in the bathtub. Was I bad for wanting a bottle of bleach? There’s a lot of massive anti-bleach hype on the Internet, but is it really that bad? I found an article that explains that bleach is not as bad as you might think. (Note: The first paragraph of this article has a typo in it. It should say, “household bleach does NOT pose a significant threat to the environment.”)

Small volume isn’t the only reason scientists are unconcerned about household bleach. Conditions in your laundry room are vastly different from conditions in a paper-bleaching plant, and as a result the household bleach behaves differently. “I am not aware of chlorine in washing machines causing significant hazards,” says Vern Snoeyink, Ph.D., a professor of environmental engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “We’re not aware of any significant problems with the bleach used in laundry, even at some of the bigger facilities,” says the IJC’s Bevaquah. “It’s just not a problem.”

Why isn’t it a problem? Scientists say that at least two major conditions are necessary to produce a long-chain organochlorine like dioxin, and they aren’t present in a household situation. To produce dioxin, the chlorine must have a low pH, and it must have a precursor (a set of carboncontaining molecules) to react with. The pH of household bleach is too high, says de Fur, and there are few, if any precursors available in the average load of dirty socks. In contrast, a paper-bleaching plant is packed with carbon-containing substances, and has a low pH. “I suppose you could throw a bunch of sawdust in the laundry,” speculates McCabe, “but even then you still couldn’t make dioxin.”

Now, this article is from 1995, but basic science does not change in 10 years. Household bleach breaks down to salt and water after being thrown down the drain. It is not the same thing as the bleach used to bleach toilet paper.

The problem with household  bleach is that making it can be harmful to the environment, but that can go for just about any product you buy these days. And of course, breathing in the fumes for a long period time isn’t good for you. But rather than being overly concerned with an occasional use of bleach, you are better off buying products that don’t use commercial bleaching, because that’s what really hurts the environment and pollutes. Buying recycled toilet paper that does not use chlorine bleach would be a good place to start.

I’ve actually been using a Hipster PDA (or hPDA) for my organizing needs for some time now. As much as I love computers, I have never been able to deal with electronic to-do lists. My Hipster PDA fits into my purse and I use it to write random notes, to-dos, and ideas for my business. It also has a calendar, which I make manually by printing out a template onto cards that I cut to index size. (I still don’t know why some smart person hasn’t started selling pre-printed Hipster PDA index cards…on recycled paper, of course!)

I’ve thus avoided the smartphone mania for some time. I did used to have a Palm device – actually, a Handspring Visor – and actually, I still own it. I can’t sync it anymore (serial connection) but I do have a backup module in case it needs a reset. Since it takes batteries I sometimes like to play solitaire on it, or the extremely addictive Dope Wars.

But alas, I needed a way to get email instantly and have a more robust calendar for the yoga classes I am teaching. I got a BlackBerry Curve for Christmas, and it’s fabulous. It has:

A 2.0 megapixel camera with flash
A video camera
An MP3 player (with an iPod-like interface)
Push email
Calendar/contacts
GPS system with voice navigation
Full keyboard
Games (I even found a free version of Dope Wars for BlackBerry!)

The default browser isn’t so hot, but if you download Opera Mini, you will get a fantastic mobile browsing experience, complete with easy zoom functionality.

Screw the iPhone – I love having a real, full keyboard. Touchscreen does not do it for me, never mind that it’s probably easier to break. (By the way, what was wrong with the Palm stylus system anyway? I actually got good at Graffiti and miss using it!)

The downside to the BlackBerry is that if you don’t have Microsoft Outlook, your option for syncing your calendar and contacts is Google. Google is starting to scare me – are they going to turn out to be the younger, trendier version of Microsoft? I hate having to put all my info online like that but I’m not buying Outlook. (And it does work pretty well.)

Problem is – there is no way to sync your to-do lists in Google. Once again, I am back to my Hipster PDA as the best, most convenient solution for my to-do lists and brainstorming sessions.

Is it environmentally bad to be using up paper like that? Should I just be typing it all in? If someone would come up with PDA that used a stylus with handwriting recognition, maybe I would. Well, I guess I could get a tablet PC one of these days…though buying a very resource-intensive computer just to save a few trees does not seem to be a good trade, environmentally speaking.

I guess I’ll be sporting both the Curve and the hPDA…at least we women get to carry purses around so it’s no big deal at any rate.

The big elephant in the living room that many environmentalists don’t want to address is the overpopulation problem. With 6 billion people on the planet and growing, we need to start looking at voluntary humane ways of keeping the population down. If we don’t, mother nature will do it for us in the form of plagues and natural disasters.

I’m a woman so it’s fair for me to blame women for this overpopulation problem. Far too often, we women use children as a means of making our egos feel good. Certainly, some of this is a biological urge, but it can’t be all that, since I’m a woman with regular hormones and a decent sex drive who doesn’t get all jazzed up over babies.

For some women, however, having a “baby” is the difference between happiness and despair. Enter the “reborn doll.” This is like a “real doll” for women, but instead of being an anatomically correct sex doll, the reborn doll is a lifelike baby doll. These things look so realistic that police officers have bashed in car windows to rescue the baby dolls from hot cars in the summer.

Most of these dolls are simply dolls with realistic features and mohair. But some are now getting robotic elements – a beating heart or a chest that rises and falls like the child is breathing. Soon enough, these dolls may end up going to the extreme of realism. I can’t imagine why anyone would want a barfing, pooping baby doll, but you never know. The creepiest thought is whether or not they’ll actually make these things capable of suckling on a woman’s breast. Eeuw.

So the question is, which is more damaging to the environment in the long run – real babies, or an army of robot babies, who require parts and plastic and electronic batteries and components and all that nonsense?

Hmm…

First incandescent bulbs were the enemy. Now CFLs are getting bad marks from the EPA for their mercury content. Are there any good light bulbs out there? Maybe we need to switch to soy candles or something…

The Sierra Club has a quiz on the energy efficiency of various television technologies. You can take the quiz here. (I got a high score even though I guessed on many of the answers.)

I was interested to find out that my guess that it’s better to keep my old CRT than trade it in for a large widescreen was right – keeping the CRT is probably the more eco-thing to do. Why? (more…)

Here’s an interesting article by Mike Adams outlining why he thinks digital cameras are better for the environment than film cameras, even with the technology.

I’ll add one more plus to digital: Not only do you save the environment by not developing so much film, you cut back on clutter. I have an entire box of old photos that just sit there, doing nothing. I have three old photos albums that also just sit there and take up space. I should just scan it all in, back it up and be done with it. Besides, do I really need to keep bad photos of me in college, wearing cut-off shorts, black tights, and combat boots? Um, maybe not.

OK, I realize it is a bit ridiculous that I live by myself and own three television sets. To be fair, however, they are older sets, the big heavy behemoths of yesteryear: two 27″ screens and an old 13″ TV with a VCR built in.

The 13″ was being thrown out by a roommate years ago, which seemed like a waste, so I snagged it. It’s now in my office near my computer. The second 27″ a friend gave me (her landlord had it sitting around gathering dust). It’s now in my bedroom. The third 27″ is in the living room. I like it, actually. It’s big enough to see but it doesn’t take up too much space.

So I guess I don’t quite see the point in this constant TV-upgradamania that we seem to be going through. HDTV – why should I care? I have enjoyed TV for decades without HD so I miss HD about as much as I miss 3D TV. Which is…never. (more…)

I just got a Costco membership after being taken there on two trips by different folks who swear by the low prices there. (You must be careful, however, to not buy bulk items that you don’t really need.) I shop at Trader Joe’s for most of my groceries, but on occasion I have a hankering for things like Gatorade, Skippy, and deluxe macaroni, so I go to a normal grocery store for those items. Costco seemed like a better option.

But what about Whole Foods? Isn’t that supposed to be the feel good, environmental grocery store? Sure, but it’s damn expensive. I simply cannot afford to go there and shop regularly. The location near me, in West Los Angeles, has prices sometimes double or triple that of Trader Joe’s. (more…)