Green Daily

In case you missed it -- and didn't spend a good portion of your Wednesday playing Turdly Winks on WaterAid.org -- yesterday was World Toilet Day. And by my calculations that makes this World Toilet Week. Which explains why the leading health and conservation authorities in Australia are calling on the world to ditch the old school flush toilet and take a seat on the water conserving throne of the future.

At yesterday's World Toilet Summit in Macau, founder of the WTO (World Toilet Organization) Jack Sims railed agaisnt the water-slurping model that most of us use today, calling it unsustainable. Instead, the WTO is getting behind a new type of poo receptacle. Details are a bit sketchy on exactly what kind of "dry" toilet they're recommending, but one thing seems clear: instead of dropping the kids off at the pool, the new toilet would be more akin to sending them to work on the sustainable farm. The new toilets separate solid and liquid waste, making it easier to compost and turn into fertilizer.

When researchers are California State University set out to assess the financial benefits of cleaning up the air in sunny southern California, they had no idea that their findings would make such a strong case. According to their research, not only could cleaning up SoCal's air save $28B annually in health care and sick leave costs, but the number of deaths resulting from air pollution exceeded the number of vehicular deaths recorded by the California Highway Patrol -- by a wide margin.

Pulling data from hospital records in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Basin, there were 3,812 deaths attributed to "respiratory illnesses caused by particulate pollution" in 2006. Compare that with the 2,512 traffic fatalities recorded in the same area by the CHiPs. The study is definitely good ammunition to throw at those who believe that California "can't afford to clean up."

Herein lies the hang-up: the study also says that to achieve the economic and health benefits, both regions must reduce their particulate emissions by 50%. Needless to say, that's going to be an uphill battle.

SustainLane is a great green resource, especially when you're looking for a local green-friendly business.

With the holiday spending season looming, they're making it easier to find great prices on green choices. This week they announced the launch of the "GreenSaver" E-Circular.

Each week the GreenSaver E-Circular newsletter showcases special offers from some of the 20,000 companies listed in the SustainLane Green Business Directory, with discounts on items like clothing, jewelry, office, home and garden and pet supplies.

it's free to sign up for the newsletter, or you can browse through the archive of offers on the SustainLane site.

The list is still a bit thin, but they are ramping up quickly. And with discounts like 40% off kids clothing from True Genius, and 20% off online organic beauty store Beautorium, it's already worth a visit and a bookmark!

Typically Beaujolais Nouveau wines are released the Thursday prior to Thanksgiving, which means many bottles of the fruity French vino can be found scattered around the turkey covered and pie-laden countertops of whatever house I happen to be dining in.

This year the red wine is going green, thanks to Boisset and Georges Duboeuf.

First, a quick study: Beaujolais Nouveau is a fairly light red wine created from Gamay grapes. As you may have guessed, it is from the Beaujolais region of France.

Last week I posted about a carbon/ecological footprint quiz that some people found less than helpful. I was a fan because it offered the science behind the numbers and because it didn't guilt or chastise the user for the choices she made.

But one reader pointed out that the calculator I'd mentioned from Conservation International was too simplistic. It sometimes went for an all or nothing approach. So I've checked around for a few other calculators, and have these suggestions:

The BBC recently updated its carbon calculator from a cartoon guilt-trip to a few more scientific and exacting exams. The first is a quiz devised by Environmental activist Mayer Hillman. It's Euro-centric, so those who cannot use the London Tube may not have the most accurate results. You can, however, check out how other people fared.

The second is from a newly launched page called Bloom. Another small, cartoony character helps the page viewer determine what's fact and fiction about carbon contributions and which actions actually impact the environment for better. Shopping, gardening, cooking and holidays are just a few of the areas Bloom takes a look at.

The Carbon Footprint company, a consulting firm aimed at greening business, has a very detailed calculator that requires not only your location but your average spending. It also compares your results to your average neighbor.

I can't vouch for Bon Apetit's low carbon diet calculator, but it's certainly an interesting concept.

And after you've depressed yourself or found yourself superior to the rest of your countrymen, you can remind yourself of the size of David Beckham and Celine Dion's footprints.

Speaking of measurements, Conservation International has a dandy carbon calculator and a separate ecological impact calculator.

Unlike most carbon calculators that take your through cartoons of suburban living with editorial comments on what an immoral global citizen you are for digesting so much carbon, this calculator is straightforward. Users can use a simple or detailed series of carbon measurements based on home life habits, travel and driving. Instead of asking you to blindly accept the math Conservation International provides an explanation of its measurements under the tab "methodology and sources."

The ecological impact calculator examines your recycling, consuming and eating habits largely. At the end of both of these gadgets CI asks you for something. The carbon calculator suggests you make a donation to offset your carbon footprint based on what you've consumed. The ecological impact calculator wants you to pledge your willingness to fight for a better Earth.

For me, this brings to mind small green army men of my youth.

I have resisted the urge to own an iPhone. My current phone works perfectly well, thank you very much. But if you are one of the millions who snapped up the magical phone/browser/emailer/mp3 player/Atlas etc. then you might be interested in this latest application.

The greenMeter is a new iPhone and iPod Touch application that measures your car's efficiency and carbon footprint. The tool actually measures your real fuel usage.

You enter a few data points about your car, the drag, the weight, the cost of fuel and few other things. Most of this stuff is accessible through your car's manual or the maker's Website.

From there the iPhone greenMeter application will measure engine power, carbon footprint and energy impact. It will offer a glimpse into how you might increase fuel efficiency and find the best cruising speed. For the conscientious and the speed demons this might be like a little carbon cop sitting on your dashboard.

This sounds appealing to me, but there are only so many measurements I want to keep track of. For example, I know how many of you read my posts in a given day. I can't stop from looking and yet I don't want to know. If you find yourself in the same predicament with your fuel efficiency the cost of this application will not help your dilemma: $5.99.

[LA Times]

You can take this as either a silver lining to today's bleak economic situation or the cruel musings of a self-absorbed crackpot scientist -- but atmospheric researcher Paul Crutzen says that the financial meltdown of 2008 might give the environment a much-needed break. Don't shoot the messenger here, but according to Crutzen, a bear market could translate into the slower growth of carbon emissions and more careful use of energy resources.

While Crutzen's statements are sure to be unpopular, it does beg the question: are hard times easier on the environment? Considering the fact that many Americans might soon be in a state of a financial paralysis, it's easy to imagine that most of us will be burning less fossil fuels. Still, I hate to say it, but I think today's doom and gloom will be worse for the environment long-term -- because the financial crash is wreaking some very real havoc on the clean energy sector. If credit dries up, and green energy projects get put on hold, greening the economy is going to take a lot more time.

I know I'm not a Nobel prize winning scientist -- but I'm also not the guy who adovcates shooting tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to lower earth's temperature. Ahem.

When it comes to corporate greenness, there are plenty of surprise winners and losers out there. For example, IBM's business practices are more eco-friendly than Apple's. Or, that the once vilified Wal-Mart is now pursuing some of the nation's most ambitious sustainability goals. To add to the list, we now find that Starbucks -- one of the most successful and consumer savvy companies around -- has been pouring enough water down the drain each day to supply the entire nation of Zambia.



That's due to a strange health/cleanliness policy that mandates that a faucet over a sink called the "dipping well" must be kept running at all times. Apparently, Starbucks health officials believe that running the tap constantly prevents bacteria growth in the pipes -- or something like that. Most experts seem to believe that Starbucks' obsession with running water is pure superstition, and a wasteful one at that. According to The Sun, leaving one Starbucks tap running for just 3 minutes wastes "the amount of water one African needs to survive for a day in drought conditions."

The problem really spirals out of control when you take into account that Starbucks is operating 10,000 stores worldwide, pouring an estimated 6.18 million gallons of water down the drain per day.

It doesn't take a stock broker to know that when the Dow plummets 500 points, the economy is in pretty bad shape, but how is this crisis affecting the clean energy revolution that we're seeing all these commercials about? Well, no surprises here -- it doesn't look good. Just as policy makers are trying to expand carbon trading schemes, the giant international investment banks that organize these projects are filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Ouch.

Lehman Brothers -- the bank that triggered yesterday's Wall Street nightmare -- wasn't a leader in the carbon trading world, but it was involved in a number of carbon offsetting projects around the world. Now, they're out of the picture. European investors expect to have a tough time getting financing for their projects across the EU. As they pondered yesterday's impact on renewable energy at a conference in London, they estimated a debt finance shortfall of $29B by 2020.

If there is a silver lining in these bankruptcies, it's the fact that the losses that dragged them down had nothing to do with the green sector. Green investments will hopefully remain attractive to investors.

They say that some people are auditory learners and others are hands-on. Well, this tool is perfect for people who absorb information best when they see it expressed visually -- like me. It's called Worldmapper and it's an online catalog of maps that re-imagines the globe based on factors like population, resources, pollution, and even municipal garbage collection.

Which sounds more eco-friendly: hauling your junk to the local landfill, or packing it onto one of the world's largest container ships and sending it 10,000 miles to be recycled? Considering the fact that these super-sized cargo ships aren't equipped with SkySails, it's pretty hard to believe that sending newspaper and plastic bottles to China is carbon-friendly at all. It's always better to keep it local, right?

According to a study by the UK's Waste Resources Action Programme, this counter-intuitive recycling program reduces emissions big time. For newspaper, the trip to China only burns up 1/3 of the carbon saved by recycling it. For paper, the equation gets even more advantageous. Plus, because of the UK's trade deficit with the People's Republic, ships are leaving the UK's ports empty all the time. So why not fill them full of the recyclables that are suddenly valuable?

In a way, it makes since because China manufactures nearly everything the western world buys. This is just a convoluted way of send resources back to the front of the line.

Oil companies aren't the only ones getting a financial lift from 2008's commodity crunch. Other, less likely winners are raking in record profits as a result of the booming demand for raw materials like aluminum, tin and plastics: recyclers. As prices for recycled materials climb into uncharted territory, waste management companies are finding that their warehouses filled with junk are starting to look more like gold mines.

According to The Independent, a bale of aluminum cans is selling for $900 -- roughly the price of an ounce of gold. Apparently, the upward trend hasn't gone unnoticed and venture capital is pouring into the "waste and recycling" business. In 2001, investors pumped a pithy $20M into the waste materials biz. By 2007, that number had topped $622M. No longer is the recycling business populated with hippie environmentalists with funky business models, now it's Wall Street that's digging through the trash.

[via ENN]

Forget the fact that the world's elite are skiing in Dubai this summer, there's a Sheik in Qatar with a story that blows that out of the water. At a time when activists are protesting a 3rd runway at Heathrow, this guy packs his Lamborghini on a jet bound for London -- for a routine oil change. In total, the oil change is going to run him about $45,000 -- about $40,000 of it was just for the shipping. In the words of a British airport worker:

"This car doesn't have a carbon footprint – more of a crater."

I've done my share of oil changes and believe me -- it's a piece of cake. Not only that, but it was my understanding that Qatar has a pretty nice-sized oil stockpile of its own. No need to send your car to Britain to get an oil change when you live in one of the most oil-rich nations in the world. Right? Sheesh.

A while ago American Public Media's Center for Innovation in Journalism came up with a game called "Consumer Consequences." The idea is to figure out how many earth's would be needed if everyone lived like you lived.

The game is straightforward. You select the type of place you live, the amount of space you live in, the way you commute, travel and use energy and the way you dispose of all that energy. Along the way boxes appear letting you know how you might further conserve energy.

It takes just under four earths to live like me, though the number is likely higher. I said I recycle 90-percent of all the plastics and other recyclable materials I use. Really, I'm being too kind to myself. I can't recycle my plastic strawberry cartons, all of my prescription bottles or the caps to any of my plastic bottles. Likely, there are other ways I'm kidding myself about energy use. Nonetheless, it's an interesting exercise.

Here's where to play Consumer Consequences.