Flint Michigan is responding to the shrinking of the city by razing old neighborhoods that have fallen into disrepair and returning the land to nature. Some folks are up in arms over this, thinking mistakenly that the city is taking over people’s property, but the property in question has been abandoned. So I think it’s a great idea! More here…
There’s a lot of resistance to San Francisco’s new recycling law:
Throwing orange peels, coffee grounds and grease-stained pizza boxes in the trash will be against the law in San Francisco, and could even lead to a fine.
The Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 Tuesday to approve Mayor Gavin Newsom’s proposal for the most comprehensive mandatory composting and recycling law in the country. It’s an aggressive push to cut greenhouse gas emissions and have the city sending nothing to landfills or incinerators by 2020.
My question is: Is it in anyway feasible to send “nothing” to landfills? Seems like a pipe dream to me. I would actually prefer that cities put energies into reclaiming methane gas from landfills as a viable alternative fuel source. If that were done with all landfills, there would be no need to sort out organic waste from the trash. Why waste a good fuel source?
The thing that really ticks me off about Obama is that he’ll say or do one thing that will make liberals really happy (like announcing better fuel standards for cars) and then when you’re not paying as close attention, try to swindle some piece of crap under your nose. In an extremely egregious example, last week the EPA approved 42 our of 48 mountaintop removal permits, more than in the entire history of two terms of G.W. Bush! These mountaintop removals are extreme forms of strip-mining as a means of accessing coal. Coal? Why coal? Where’s our solar power? Where’s our wind power?
Have 42 out of 48 permits for mountaintop removal — the process of blowing up our nation’s oldest and most diverse mountains, razing historic communities, poisoning watersheds, and causing massive erosion and flooding, which Vice President Al Gore has termed “a crime, and ought to be treated as a crime” — cleared as “environmentally responsible” by the Obama administration’s EPA?
Since President Barack Obama has taken office, an estimated 300 million pounds of ammonium nitrate/fuel oil explosives have been detonated across our American mountains.
In effect: Residents in the mountaintop removal areas have been subjected to a kind of waterboarding environmental policies.
Here is another article on the subject:
‘Appalachian Apocalypse’: Obama Permits Mountaintop Removal Mining
All I have to say is, environmentalists need to keep a strict eye on the Obama administration. Environmental platitudes sent out in the form of headline-making press releases do not equate to a real commitment to the environment or solving our energy problems as cleanly as possible. Shame on them for actually making Bush look better when it comes to this issue.
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 always find the concern over farm animals creating global warming to be a curious one. The latest screaming headline out is “Cows With Gas: India’s Contribution to Global Warming” We read a lot about how these cows can’t be stopped from putting methane into the air because giving them better feed or medicine to stop the methane release is beyond the reach of poor farmers. It is not until the end of the article that we read:
One long-running project has been biogas production – cow dung is utilized to make biogas for use in kitchens and even compressed biogas for use in vehicles. “Biogas plants have been very successful,” says R.K. Rajeshwari, a fellow at TERI, “Farmers are able to use biogas in their kitchens, to light lamps and to even drive vehicles.” Such projects, she says, have been particularly successful at gaushalas, cow shelters supported by donations from the devout and by government grants, of which there are 4,000 across India now. Most gaushalas are for abandoned, dry and aged cattle, of which there are many since killing cows is illegal in all but two states (the communist-ruled West Bengal and Kerala). “This way they are put to some use at least,” says Rajeshwari, “And by replacing conventional sources of energy, they help prevent global warming.”
I mean, yeah, hello, we’re facing a worldwide energy shortage soon and we’re trying to stop methane gas from being produced? We should be finding ways to harness all this cow flatulence! (Humane ways, of course.) I recently saw something on TV where cows would wear something around their necks that would collect their methane breath. Why not find a way to collect methane from the air around farms? Cow flatulence as fuel, why not? Just think – natural gas will have a brand new meaning some day.
It seems that Americans still care more about convenience than the planet. A law banning phosphate-based dishwashing soap has led residents of Spokane to dash across state lines to smuggle in “bootleg” detergents:
Real estate agent Patti Marcotte of Spokane stocks up on detergent at a Costco in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and doesn’t care who knows it.
“Yes, I am a smuggler,” she said. “I’m taking my chances because dirty dishes I cannot live with.”
Because of course, in the hierarchy of American values, dirty dishes are oooh so much worse than the resultant dirty lakes and streams that result from phosphates.
I definitely feel there is something to the “New World Order” conspiracy theories out there suggesting that a global elite is pulling the strings behind the scenes in an effort to maximize their power and profits.
I’ve been concerned, however, that a few of the “conspiracy theorists” blow off genuine concerns over climate change as yet another conspiracy designed to manipulate people. Forget those new-fangled words “global warming” and “climate change.” Can we get back to a real basic, simple, yet desciptive word: POLLUTION? POLLUTION is the problem – pollution of the atmosphere, our groundwater, our environment. Can we all agree to try to cut down on pollution? And then whether or not said pollution causes global warming or climate change is a debate to be had, but it won’t distract us from the first goal, which is: REDUCING POLLUTION.
Mike Adams has an interesting article on the whole global warming conspiracy. He says it’s both. Read more:
Is Global Warming A Hoax? The Real Story on Climate Change and the Non-Future of Human Civilization
The “green” movement has been extremely trendy in recent years, trendy to the point of overexposure. With all the little green labels popping up everywhere, you have to start wondering what’s really green and what’s just green-washing. You know the movement has gotten a bit shallow when the worst of our cultural celebrity obsession merges with environmental news in the form of “green celebrity” sites like Ecorazzi.
But my admittedly tentative prediction is that such celebrity-focused media is going to lessen in coming years rather than strengthen. In my short almost 40 years of life, I’ve seen America turn from a relatively balanced culture into one where tabloids have taken over. We didn’t have “paparazzi” in the 1980s. This all started happening in the 90s. The mindless celebrity-obsessing seems to have hit an all-time high, and I can’t help but wonder (and hope) if we’ve hit the peak of it.
How does this relate to the green movement?
Back to Reality…
My feeling overall is that we’re coming off a collective high that is landing in one huge hangover. We had the dot-com bubble and then the housing bubble. People thought they sky was the limit and they could make money on doing practically nothing (flipping stocks, flipping houses).
We saw this represented in our television and media. We have an entire cable channel, E! Entertainment, devoted to mindless hours of celebrity focus. Shows such as “Dirty Sexy Money” were launched. Reality TV wasn’t so much about reality as it was about fantasy.
We obsessed over Britney, Paris, and what clothes people were wearing on the red carpet. This is easy to do when the money is everywhere and we’re collectively gorging on our own materialistic feast.
In the midst of this brainless cultural orgy, some positive things did emerge. Certain celebrities, such as Leonardo di Caprio and Ed Begley, decided to use their name power to help the environment. Meanwhile, Al Gore hit us with an Inconvenient Truth.
This was all well and good. But then the paparazzi mentality took over. Green was the “in” thing, and all the tabloids and celebrity news shows started jumping on it. It seemed to be an antidote to the ridiculous, over-the-top focus on clothes and hair – now we’re focusing on how green the clothes are! Hemp is in, polyester out! Prius in, BMW out!
Here’s my concern. Anything that becomes a trend is likely to become not a trend after a certain saturation point. I fear that environmental awareness may end up being thrown out with the celebrity focus. I definitely feel that America is going to be less interested in frivolous stuff if our recession deepens. Who has the stomach to watch a rich heiress or a Britney-of-the-moment blow her fortune on late night escapades and neurotic head-shaving sessions when your 401K becomes worthless overnight?
Some might suggest we’ll want more escape, but I’d submit that while we may want escape, it won’t be towards focusing on the rich. Candace Bushnell’s new television series Lipstick Jungle was heralded as the next Sex and the City, and show bombed. Having watched a few episodes, I can only say that there’s nothing much appealing about a rich, whiny, privileged woman whose main concern is whether her handsome husband or their nanny has to take care of the kids the night she’s going to an elite soiree.
I feel we’ll be seeing television go back to the real instead of the fake – don’t be surprised if we don’t suddenly see a return of gritty, 70s style shows. (I’m placing my bets on a recreation of the Waltons, a show about a family struggling during the Great Depression.)
In this economic environment, you will perhaps see celebrities shift their focus from the environment to more pressing situations, such as the growing tent cities near major US urban areas.
Green Consumerism
For regular Americans, being green has already been too expensive and will only become more so as inflation rises and belts tighten. Who has money for solar panels when unemployed? Who can afford to upgrade the car to a hybrid when the mortgage can’t be paid?
Organic food is already more expensive (sometimes two or three times) than standard food. A shirt made from organic cotton might cost $100 whereas the same one in regular cotton would cost $50.
But see, here we come to the crux of the problem: Too much of the environmental movement has focused on consumerism geared towards the affluent.
My being green should not depend on my purchase of an expensive eco-friendly yoga mat!
I do notice a lot of urban liberals poo-pooing places like Wal-Mart, saying that people shouldn’t shop there and that they should go to a boutique local shop instead. OK, that’s all fine and dandy if you are making a lot of money, but please don’t tell someone who is just trying to scrape by and take care of their family that they should spend $200 on a dress when they can get something comparable for $20 at the big box store.
People are by all rights practical, and when they have the money to spend on nicer things they will, otherwise, they’ll go for what they can afford. Period. You can’t squeeze more juice than what’s already in the lemon.
Thus, I feel, with belts tightening, people will be less inclined to buy the more expensive eco or organic versions of products, whether it’s in the form of soap or sofas.
Where We Can Make Progress
I’ve felt for a long time that America needs to return to the value of frugality. When you have less money, you become more frugal and creative with what you have. So instead of rampant consumerism where people will run out and by huge McMansions and newer and bigger large screen TVs every other year, we may see the following:
As such, I think the environmental movement would be best served by finding ways to help people save money while helping the planet, rather than spending more money buying pricey eco-products. With such a shift, being more green could become a more permanent way of life rather than just the latest fad.
I’ve been using Linux Mint instead of Ubuntu for a while, and overall I’m pleased with it. However, since upgrading from Linux Mint 5 (Elyssa) to 6 (Felicia), I’ve actually been a little less happy with it. A few irksome problems:
Flash: Seemingly minor but not really when a lot of your work requires you to be online a lot: Flash is screwed on Felicia. I’m not sure why, but there have been reports around the net from frustrated users who went to great lengths to reinstall the operating system just to get this minor feature to work. I did find that Flash in the Opera browser seems to work, but the browser is not very stable. This is enough of a hindrance that I find myself sticking to (ugh) Vista for most daily tasks. Waiting for an upgrade for this to be fixed.
New Software Manager: The new software manager actually removes features that made me prefer Mint to Ubuntu. Notably, I’m disappointed that I can’t use the graphical “apt-get” feature anymore. Bummer.
Menu: With the addition of separate buttons for shutting down and suspending, my menu has gotten bloated and I now have to scroll to see all the icons on the bottom left corner. I can’t seem to be able to resize the menu. Perhaps a minor complaint, but interface for me is important. I’m also getting less happy with Gnome’s flat, boring themes. I can’t seem to find a middle ground between KDE4′s bloatware and Gnome’s boringware.
ATI Drivers: Apparently, the new versions of xorg do not work well with ATI graphics cards. This is not really Mint’s fault, but really…can we just get ATI cards to work in Linux already? So many people have them, and they never work out of the box. I have held back on upgrading my ATI video laptop due to this issue.
On the positive: On my non-ATI laptop, I can finally get dual windows to work where the screen stretches across from one monitor to the other. Finally!
I still love Linux, but I really feel that basic things such as Flash need to work out of the box in order to make Linux something regular people can use. Right now, with all the little buggy things going on with my Linux distributions, I can’t really recommend the operating system to anyone who isn’t a bit of a nerd, and that’s a shame.
Aren’t any environmentalists even slightly disturbed by the excessive traveling Obama has done during his short tenure in office? It seems the left loved to bash Bush for being on vacation all the time, but wants to give Obama a pass on his constant use of jet fuel. Is there any carbon-offsetting done for Air Force One? I doubt it.
The latest – Obama will be flying off to Denver on Tuesday to sign the stimulus package in a ridiculous canned photo op, a stimulus package that doesn’t do enough for alternative energy and is likely to put this country into a debt hole we’ll never get out of.
Starry-eyed Obama supporters are gushing at how this shows he’s a man of the people – c’mon people, a real man of the people doesn’t have a private jet to fly around in at the snap of his fingers. Now if he drove across country in a beat up station wagon ala “National Lampoon’s Vacation,” then we’d be on to something!
Bad Behavior has blocked 76 access attempts in the last 7 days.