The last time I was in the grocery store, the customer in front of me purchased a pack of gum and stamps. These two items could easily be crammed into the pocket of one’s jeans or carried in the palm of one’s hand, yet a plastic bag was provided for the purpose of convenient transporting.

Plastic bags. Pizza delivery. Chinese take-out. To-go boxes. Drive thru windows. Do we really need a plastic bag for a pack of gum and some stamps? In a society run on quick-n-easy conveniences, it seems we have stopped thinking and have become complacent to these everyday actions. While at the check-out counter it’s as if we don’t notice the resources that go into the making of the plastic, paper or individually wrapped Wrigley sticks.

Each of these conveniences contributes to global environmental change. By modifying our behaviors and lifestyles away from these polluting conveniences, we can make a big difference. While it may add a few minutes to my morning routine to stick a coffee mug or container into my bag before going to the café or office, I feel rewarded throughout the day for taking that extra step.

It’s even becoming “trendy” to BYOB - bring your own bag – to the grocery store or farmer’s market. The trick to remembering is to leave a few re-usable bags in the back of your car. While many stores are making money off tote bag sales (I recently entered a target that featured canvas totes decorated with green sayings as the new “hip-gotta-have-it” item of the month), any bag, purse or back-pack will work.

Going bagless is one of the easiest ways to reduce our ecological footprints. So please, next time you're at the store wrap it in peace, not plastic.

When you think of the 1.5 million barrels of oil in the US that are used to make water bottles from polyethylene terephthalate, of which about 90% are landfilled or incinerated, the cool clear liquid you are about to quench seems far from refreshing. 

Not to mention that most of the bottled water in today's industry is just tap water in disguise! Corporations are turning a natural resource into a profit making consumer trap. Millions of money goes into advertisement to sale bottled water as cleaner, healthier and even better tasting then tap water.

Students from universities around the country are opting out of the bottle water biz and spreading a new trend in reusuable bottles like the Kleen Kanteen. Tufts Univiersity students are fighting back by pledging to not support corporate control of water. I really like how we as students can come together and make a tidal wave in our communities and world. Join the movement and take action today! 

Even accounting for the environmental impact of shipping to the recycling plant, [one clothing recycling outlet] reports a 76 percent decrease in energy use and a 71 percent decrease in carbon dioxide emissions compared to using virgin materials.

The United States is the only industrialized nation to refuse to sign the Kyoto protocol and has objected to a UN proposal to significantly reduce carbon emissions by the year 2020. The Bush administration has slashed budget funding for renewable energy incentives. And Bush's 2005 Energy Policy Act gave a total of $4.3 billion in tax incentives to oil companies.

Yet, at the March 5th Washington International Renewable Energy Conference, Bush looked the world in the eye and said with a straight face, “America is in the lead when it comes to energy independence; we're in the lead when it comes to new technologies; we're in the lead when it comes to global climate change; and we'll stay that way.”

The Bush administration has refused to come clean about their unwillingness to address the United States' contribution to global warming. Instead, they rely on a campaign of propaganda, false “science,” and now, outright lies. They believe that if they repeat something often enough, the public will simply accept it as truth. And they believe that the American people won't bother to check the facts.

President Bush is undermining our society's commitment to fighting global warming to the world and making us a laughing stock in the international community. And he has made it clear that he has no intention of addressing this impending crisis.

Progressive Future is working to make the United States a true leader in renewable energy. It's simply a matter of being a responsible member of the global community. Show the Bush administration and the world our commitment to fighting global warming by signing our Priorities for a Progressive Future.

Here in South Africa, the theme of the past month has literally been conserve or die, as power failures across the country are leading to forced energy-saving nationwide.

Things are getting interesting here, as every day the power goes out for at least 4 or 5 hours in most parts of the country. This is leaving Eskom, the corporation in charge of SA power, running in circles attempting to save energy.

This is also forcing South Africans to look at energy conservation in ways that most Americans cannot yet dream of.

It’s Getting Hot in Here has a great post on how little global warming has been mentioned in the presidential debates. Apparently, out of 2,769 questions, only 3 were about global warming – the same number as were asked about UFOs.

Personally, I find the priorities of the US media are much more frightening than alien abduction.

Starting on Tuesday of this week, E10(10 % Ethanol) fuel will be mandated in all gasoline sold in nine Northwest counties in Oregon.
The nine will be followed over the course of the year by two sets of other counties that will eventually see by September 16th the entire state of Oregon selling motor vehicles only gas that is cut with 10% ethanol. The blend requirement is apart of an amendement to Oregon's renewable fuel legislative bill that is following in the footsteps of the city of Portland which in 2007 became the first major U.S. city to mandate the 10% ethanol blend within its city limits.

A 10% ethanol blend can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18-29% compared with conventional gasoline and in 2006 reduced CO2 greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 8 billion tons Argonne National Laboratory. The ethanol blend is expected to reduce smog pollution and has been certified by the EPA to reduce carbon monoxide emissions up to 30 percent.

In addition, two ethanol producing plants are currently being built in the state which will help create jobs and hopefully allow the state's ethanol supply to eventually come completely from local source. Oregon will become the 4th state behind Hawaii, Minnesota and Missouri to mandate the E10 blend in all gasoline sold.

While biofuels provide enviromental benefits, it is largely linked to feedstock production and fuel processing and therefore are only as sustainable as these industries. As reported in The Econmist, a major switch to biofuels could also increase food prices and have a major, possibly negative impact on world markets.
The switch to biofuels has even lead a U.N. expert to define biofuel a "crime against humanity"-stating that biofuels are leading to a worldwide food shortage due to increased food costs.

Some infuriating reporting reveals the the Environmental Protection Agency is actually blocking automobile emissions standards by California and 16 other states. This just goes to show that even though the United States signed onto the Bali pact last week, agreeing to reduce emissions by 2012, that commitment isn't backed up in any real way by this administration. These states are willing to put forth enforcement on their own, but for the first time the EPA -- the part of the government designed to protect the environment -- blocked an initiative in conflict with the Clean Air Act.

Those lobbying against the initiative, primarily automakers, are thrilled. They say it would be "too difficult" to adhere to different standards in different states. Perhaps then they should just meet the lowest emissions standard and sell those in the rest of the states as well.  

I thought this from Dave Roberts over at Grist was pretty interesting:

[According to] Gene Karpinski of the League of Conservation Voters: as of mid-November, Tim Russert of Meet the Press had interviewed presidential candidates 16 times, asking nearly 300 questions, and had not mentioned "climate change" or "global warming" a single time.

Staggering. 

Focus on the Family Action thinks Americans should stop getting divorced because divorces are bad for the environment. No, seriously.

According to the jubilant email alert I just received, a study from Michigan State University found that

married households are more efficient with water, energy and land use. On the other hand, divorced couples require an extra 38 million rooms and spend 46 percent more per capita on electricity and 56 percent more on water than married couples.

Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst for Focus on the Family Action, was tickled pink by these findings. “The results of this study support the benefits of marriage, not just for families, but for our environment…We're pleased to see that God's design for family is consistent with good environmental stewardship.”

Indeed. Now, if we could just find the part of the Bible that guarantees that bad relationships breed happiness and domestic abuse doesn't exist—then we could all accept God's blessing and save the planet by getting hitched!

This CNN Video Report about San Francisco's ban on plastic bags has the most pro-business slant ever.  Ok, maybe not ever, but even the headline gives it away: "Paper or plastic? No choice!"

The environmental movement has often had the perception of being an overwhelmingly white and wealthy movement.  Afterall, people of color and low income individuals have more important things to deal with than organic oranges and fair trade coffee.  Yet, that is a misinterpretation of what environmentalism is all about.  A better frame for the movement is environmental justice, which correctly connects the concentration of poor air quality and drinking water in low-income, high-minority areas to a central part of the environmental movement.  A great article in the Washington Post yesterday aptly highlights both the contradictions of the movement and the incorrect framing it's received:

If you drive a Prius and buy tofu at Whole Foods, going green may be a lifestyle choice. If you live in a poor neighborhood near a toxic factory, going green is a human rights issue. The movement has been slowed by a divide that is visible in everything from local recycling policies to the complexions of environmentalists. On one side are mostly white middle- and upper-class populations with plenty of money and political clout. On the other side are minority and low-income communities with little of either.

Robert Samuelson has achieved the impossible. As an anti-sprawl crusader who staunchly advocates higher gasoline taxes, I never thought I'd read a column arguing for a $1-2 per gallon increase in the gas tax that is totally obnoxious and illogical. And yet, the Washington Post's Samuelson did just that in his most recent piece. Samuelson devotes seven paragraphs to attacking Prius drivers as self-righteous show-offs. He has no empirical data to support his nasty assumption such as a poll of Prius drivers as to why they buy those cars. But he does indulge in some perverse sleight of hand when he argues:

The Prius is, I think, a parable for the broader politics of global warming. Prius politics is mostly about showing off, not curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Politicians pander to "green" constituents who want to feel good about themselves. Grandiose goals are declared. But measures to achieve them are deferred -- or don't exist.

While flyering for the Clean My Ride campaign, our fellow interns ran into some people from the Republican Youth Majority. It's not a clone of Young America's Fascists...er, Foundation, but rather has three main positions: pro-choice, pro-environment, and fiscally conservative. Board members include some of moderate Republicanism's greatest hits: Pete Wilson, Bill Cohen, William Weld, and so on. 

What to make of this? The not-surprising part is that there is a group like this; many young people (and plenty of older ones) are sick of the litmus tests in politics, and young people(even with evangelical Republicans) are almost always to the left of their parties - though the Iraq War is a notable exception to this rule. The surprising part is their choice of issues. More in extended.

On a separate angle of the demise of congestion pricing, suburban triumphalist blogger Brian Beutler is crowing about New York's minor, and hopefully temporary, environmental setback. He sneers, "Mark my words, California, land of big cars and suburbs beyond the horizon, will someday have a more impressive environmental record on a per capita basis than your precious, much vaunted boroughs."

That's cute. But that doesn't make it so. While California has every right to brag about its smart steps on raising auto emissions standards, New York, by virtue of its density, walkabiilty, and extensive mass transit system, will stay way below California in emissions per capita, whether or not New York ever passes Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal. And do you think congestion pricing is coming to L.A. any time soon? Somehow I doubt it.

cross-posted on TAPPED

But Bloomberg shares Giuliani's megalomaniacal streak. (I mean who titles their autobiography Bloomberg on Bloomberg?)

Case in point: Bloomberg failed to marshal support in the New York State Senate to pass his congestion pricing plan. And The New York Times reports that his high-handed attitude in meeting with legislators only decreased the chances of it passing:

In a tense meeting on Monday, testy exchanges erupted between the mayor and the Democratic state senators he was trying to win over. At one point, according to several people present, Mr. Bloomberg told the senators that his administration had sent plenty of information about his plan in the mail, and that it was not his fault if they had not read it.

“If the mayor came in with one vote, he left with none,” said Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat.

“His posture was not ingratiating,” he said. “He says he doesn’t know politics, and he certainly bore that out by the way he behaved.”

It's too bad that Bloomberg let his ego get in the way of passing his sensible proposal.

A neat little story from The Washington Post today points to an alarming phenomenon: the lack of sidewalks throughout growing American communities. The Post focuses on Loudon County, Virginia, a D.C. exurb that is one of the fastest growing counties in the country. The Post reports that,

A survey of 840 miles of roads in Loudoun found that 14 percent had sidewalks.... The result is a piecemeal network of sidewalks and trails that begin and end haphazardly, influenced by the date or parameters of developers' contracts. Many times, there are no formal paths between neighborhoods and nearby shopping centers, parks or schools.

Consequently pedestrians find themselves undertaking perilous journeys across six-lane roads without the benefit of a crosswalk, traipsing along narrow road shoulders and other dangerous endeavors to go even the shortest of distances. Although many local governments have begun to address this issue (Loudon started requiring sidewalks or bike trails in new developments in the 1990s), it shouldn't be left to the whims of local officials. The necessity of reducing the auto-dependence built into our landscape for safety reasons (in addition to environmental concerns, among others) is a national issue. Just as the federal government has used its considerable spending power over highway budgets to impose other rules on states, like raising the drinking age to 21, it should make pedestrian-friendly requirements for all developments (including retrofitting older ones) a requirement of receiving federal transportation funding.

cross-posted on TAPPED.