Through our search for understanding the process of recycling, we came across this company in Austin that recycles restaurant waste. Pretty awesome concept, right?? Especially, when you think about just how much useful material comes out of a restaurant.

Think of it like a cycle… the foods and products come into the restaurant, get consumed or used, then the waste that is left over; boxes, cans, broccoli heads, day-old foods, garnishes, get picked up and used to create more products or even to create produce that come back into the restaurant…

As we are learning, used materials are not used up at all and there is still some life in them!

The company is called Restaurant Recyclers. It is owned and was founded by a guy named Jimmy Mitchell. We got the opportunity to hang out with Jimmy and his business partner, Nathan to see how the whole operation works.

Here is how business rolls…

First, Jimmy makes contact with a client and evaluates the amount of waste that comes out.

Then, Jimmy will assign barrels to the business. He will have barrels for plastic, cardboard, metals, glass, and… oh, here is my favorite part… FOOD!!

Austin has a million restaurants. Well ok, I lie, but I do know that Austin is giving San Fran a run for 1^st place as the city with the most restaurants per capita.

With that many restaurants putting out waste, the only smart thing to do is to find ways to reduce that massive output!

Now, what does he do with all of that waste? The cardboard, plastics, glass, and metals go to Ecology Action (we’ll be writing about them later). EA is a local not for profit company that provides recycling drop offs in the city. 

What about the food? The food is taken back to his gardens. He has a few within Austin that he can take the food to, but his main site is a 5-acre garden in Spicewood, Texas.

The food waste is comprised of most foods but never meats or bones and preferably not dairy products, however egg whites and shells are ok. Even coffee grounds are encouraged to wind up in the ‘food’ barrels.

Now, this food’s eventual purpose is as compost for the gardens where Jimmy grows vegetables and fruits for other restaurants to use as produce.

Here’s the decomposition process, a tried and true method of windrows: Jimmy sets the food waste up in rows of mounds, then covers it up with a tarp to start decomposition. I was privileged to get a look at these rows. You can see the different levels the waste goes through. In some mounds I could make out different types of foods and in other mounds the process was complete and left behind was a uniform brown mulch. What became of the food was this beautiful composition of nutrients that looked like high grade dirt compost bought at a store. Hmm… forget buying fertilizer and dirt for your garden, use your leftovers!

Be surprised, but there was no smell! Now, I only got to see a smaller garden, so it may be possible that the huge lot in Spicewood stinks of rotting vegetables, but then maybe not.

So, that’s it. It’s very simple! The unused foods in restaurants like cabbage hearts, or carrot heads, or discarded limes and lemons, are thrown out into the barrels by an educated staff and are collected, instead of being thrown into landfills.  Then, Jimmy takes the waste and uses it to grow more veggies and fruits that eventually come back to your plate.

Jimmy currently works with over 30 businesses and he took us on a typical tour of his daily pick up. Restaurant recycling business is booming and Jimmy is having to upgrade more and more as bars and restaurants jump on the bandwagon to a more green and less wasteful way of running.

It’s baby steps. No one person or business can absolutely change over night. It is a matter of changing old habits and educating others.

It’s hard for some people to see the benefit of recycling. It’s costly, it’s obtrusive, and the process is pretty vague. So, why recycle? Why, as a business should you even remotely consider coming to the “green side”?

Well, it depends on how much you care about your reputation. Recycling and reusing are practices that are here to stay. It’s not a trend, it’s a new way of living and a new way of thinking and the best thing a business can do to keep its head above the competitive water is to be revolutionary.

Consumers, other companies, and the media, will notice the restaurants efforts and go there before any other consideration. Going green is a collective effort and society is naturally going that way.

Some of the restaurants that are currently part of this change are Opal Divine’s, Green Pastures, The Alamo Drafthouse, The Highball, Vespiao, Guero’s, Fonda San Miguel, and many others. I wish I could list them all but these are the only ones we could make it to that Saturday afternoon.

“From the Earth to the Table and back to the Earth” -Jimmy Mitchell

Recycle… Reuse… Restore… Sustainability… Renewable resources… Carbon footprint… Climate change… Change life.

There are a lot of things that the current generation is having to suddenly grow conscious of. Most of us are having to change our only known way of living!

I hear a lot of people tell me that they don’t feel they make much of a contribution to this change. “What does it matter if I recycle my trash? No one else does! I don’t really have that much trash anyway!”

It’s sad that people think that way! Because that’s just not true! We have the power to influence! As individuals we have that power!

Our small efforts to help the environment do not go unnoticed. In fact, what we do encourages others. If I decide to throw my trash on the ground, then some who watched me will do the same.

But what if  I threw my trash in a trash can? What if I threw my Coca-Cola can in aluminum recycling?

What if I did this on a daily basis? What sort of message would I be caring, then?

Instead, what if someone decides to row across the ocean, carrying the message that now is the time for change?
How far do you think that message would go?

In 2005, a woman named Roz Savage decides to row across the Atlantic; 3000 miles in 103 days from the Canary Islands to Antigua… rowing solo!
In 2008, again rowing solo, Roz rows in the 1st stage of 3 in the Pacifc. She is the first woman to row solo from California to Hawaii. 
In 2009, her 2nd stage in the Pacific, and in
2010 she will complete her self-organized trip across the Pacific. From San Francisco, CA to Australia. And she will be the 1st woman to do that, as well!

That’s some pretty amazing stuff! But why’d she do it? You can read her explanation here for a full description but mainly, she had the desire to change her ordinary life to something more fulfilling. More valuable…

Since her the Pacific, she has become an integral part of the eco-community:

• She is an ambassador for the BLUE Project
  
• She is a trained campaigner for Al Gore’s Climate Project
• A hero of the United Nations Climate Program
• An Athlete Ambassoador for the 350.org project
• And she is supported by Dot Eco, the Blue Planet Foundation, and the Blue Frontier Campaign.
• She also advocates a ‘Pull Together‘ which asks people to start walking and biking more and driving less.

That is a lot for one woman!!! Her work, alone, shows just how much one person can do. But it also tells me that whatever one person does, is a lot!

So, in the spring of 2010 she is planning the 3rd stage. As she has done each race, she will be updating her journey constantly on her website. I will be there, showing support, and I want to invite you to do the same. Show your green and blue support!!

I will keep you in the loop as I hear more information!!

In the meantime, visit her blog and you can watch as she works to make change!!

As you can tell, I’ve become quite intrigued by this woman, so I made another post about her on my other blog. You can view it here at www.rushmonkeys.com. Oh, and visit her site, of course!!!

(pictures and video courtesy of www.rozsavage.com)

-t

It could be because I am a vegetarian that it is easy for me to look at articles like the one I am about to share and feel a rush of narcissicistic vindication. Or it could be because I am currently entrenched in Jonathan Safran Foer’s new book titled Eating Animals (which currently makes me feel like never eating anything ever again – only because I am reading a chapter about turkeys which makes me feel a little ill).  In any case, this article jumped out at me today and I felt inclined to share it.

The title of this L.A. Times article caught me first: “FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle”.  I thought, GROSS!  So I decided to read the article and see why chicken feces were being fed to cattle in the first place and what the two sides of this particular arguement were. 

Essentially, cows are being fed 1 to 2 million tons per year of something called “poulty litter” which the artcle describes as a compound consisting of “feces, spilled chicken feed, feathers and poultry farm detritus”.  One person in the article states that this is a tradition that goes way back in the feeding of farm animals.  That anything that hits the ground “was fair game”.  Okey dokey.  I think most toddlers feel the same way. 

Representatives from groups like Consumers Union and Food Animal Concerns Trust, and – surpise – McDonalds (!) are saying that feeding cattle this poultry litter can cause increased infections and lead to problems like mad cow disease.

Other groups like the National Cattleman’s Beef Assn. argue that science does not prove these charges and that a ban on poultry litter is not required.

Here is the current status of regulations as defined in the article:  “Generally, the FDA has left the decision on whether to feed cattle poultry litter up to state regulators. California allows the practice with one exception: Poultry litter is banned in feed for lactating dairy cows.”

So, here’s the article for your perusal.  If you are like me, you may feel a little creeped out, or you may feel like my omnivorous co-worker who informed me that she she just chooses not to think about it.

I never preach about being a vegetarian. I never push my practices on others. I let them ask questions and I answer them honestly. If it makes them think then I feel i have done some good. So, I am not here to convert or preach… I will let the facts do that for me. Johathan Safran Foer has written a book called Eating Animals and has an interview on NPR that is an eye opener on the impacts of eating meat. Impacts not only on the body but on the environment and society. Foer’s words might be shocking to some but only made my practices and assumptions more concrete.

Living a lifestyle of not eating meat is not the end of the world. It is cheaper. I do not feel lethargic after meals. I find myself opening up to a much broader line of cuisine. Many cultures all around the world have been living a non-meat lifestyle for centuries. It is today’s society that has put emphasis on eating meat to the point where humans consume 150 times more chicken than they did 80 years ago. There are many pitfalls to supporting companies that provide beef, pork, and poultry. Environment and social economic impacts that will continue to get worse if changes are not made. Foer makes very good points and supports them with facts.

Read the full article or even listen to the interview here.

I heard this neat little story on NPR the other day and couldn’t help but wonder why somebody had not thought of this sooner!

In a nutshell, San Francisco has mandated that everyone start composting their waste. This is really remarkable because many city recycling programs only apply to people in houses. San Francisco’s new law, however, also applies to people who live in apartments, businesses, and restaraunts!

Residents have received food recycling bins into which they will put their food waste. The bins will then be sealed, collected by the city, and the food will be turned into compost and sold back to community members.

So it’s going to…

1. Cut down on waste being sent to the landfill

2. Motivate residents to become more active in protecting their environment

3. Create revenue for the city

4. And create jobs

What’s not to love? I am very excited to hear about this project and will be following it closely as I have no doubt that other cities will soon be adopting these practices should they prove successful.

Click here to read (or listen) to the article as it was presented on NPR

The International Day of Climate Action occured on October 24, 2009.  There were over 5,200 demonstrations in 181 countries.  Instead of writing anything about it, I thought I would post some of the pictures (out of 15,000 posted on their flickr site) that made the biggest impression on me.   For more information, please visit 350.org:

Ciudad de Mexico,

Rainbow Lake, NY, US

Poppy (11) and Jarrah (9) snorkel with a 350 sign at the Great Barrier Reef, Australia.

Youth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo form a 350.org sign in preparation for the October 24 International Day of Climate Action.

Students in the Dominican Republic form a 350 and circle.

The power of one at Ishtar Gate in Babylon, Iraq.

Women in Bangladesh

If your dryer is like mine it likes to eat socks.  The only sacrifice it accepts however is one sock from each pair and so I inevitably end up with a bunch of random socks from who-knows-when all rolled up at the bottom of my dresser.  If you’re having sentimental pangs for these items of leftover clothing, I have found the thing for you!  There is a gentleman named John Murphy who will take your socks (and other kinds of fabric) and reuse them to create your very own Stupid Creature.  The little custom sock monsters on his page are incredibly cute, and although they are expensive ($45 I think), it is a fun way to preserve something that might be oddly dear to your heart.  Here is the link for his Ordering FAQ with extremely detailed answers to any questions that you might have.

If you’re feeling a cramp on your wallet that makes you feel disinclined to spend the dough, don’t worry!  John Murphy has also written several  books on his craft so you can enjoy making your own sock monsters in the privacy of your own home and budget.

Enjoy!

David de Rothschild (yes he is a real Rothschild whom 7X7 magazine has termed an “Eco-Hunk”) is the founder of a group called Adventure Ecology. His latest venture is to create a boat using 12,000 plastic bottles. He even gave it its own interactive website where you can click on different parts of the boat to learn more about it!

The goal of the Plastiki Expedeition as stated on their website: “A handpicked crew of adventurers, scientists and creatives are to sail across the Pacific on the ‘Plastiki’ – a 60-foot catamaran mad from reclaimed plastic bottles. Their mission is to beat waste by inspiring sustainable solutions and to highlight the ecological damage being done to the world’s oceans.”

Very cool! And I will admit, he is pretty cute in an ‘eco-hunk’ kind of way. Here is a video:

In keeping with the recent posts on the International Day of Climate Action, I thought it was important to talk about what attention this issue is receiving in the media apart from the actions of the activists.  On October 6, 2009, and article was posted in the Washington Post called New Report Details Costs of Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions which discusses a report put out by a group called Economics for Equity and the Environment (E3).

This group of scientists is saying that the world’s carbon emissions are currently at 387 parts per million and that we need to go back down to 350 in order to avoid global disaster (i.e. – floods, droughts…oh wait, aren’t we already experiencing those at record levels?!).  I’m certainly no climatologist, but I’m in agreement that change needs to happen, and that it needs to happen sooner than later.  Here are some highlights selected by yours truly from the report:

“This report demonstrates that the ‘go slow’ recommendations are unjustified. A number of economic analyses, informed by recent scientific findings and using reasonable assumptions, suggest that more ambitious targets and quicker action make good economic sense.”

“In an important recent paper, Hansen and numerous co-authors reach two key conclusions: first, the global average temperature may be much more sensitive to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than is commonly believed; second, to avoid dangerous climate change, we may need to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from today’s 385 ppm to 350 ppm CO2 by 2100, if not sooner.”

“Hansen and his co-authors describe a detailed scenario for reducing greenhouse gas emissions with the goal of
reaching 350 ppm CO2 by 2100:
• Coal burning is phased out or achieves 100 percent carbon capture by 2030.
• Oil and gas prices rise steadily as these finite resources approach exhaustion.
• A combination of ending deforestation and initiating large-scale reforestation causes significant
negative emissions (that is, a withdrawal of CO2 from the atmosphere).”

“The most important conclusion involves what we did not find. There are no reasonable studies that say that a 350 ppm stabilization target will destroy the economy; there are no studies that claim that it is desirable to wait before taking action on climate protection. On the contrary, there is strong, widespread endorsement for policies
to promote energy conservation, development of new energy technologies, and price incentives and other economic measures that will redirect the world economy onto a low-carbon path to sustainability.”

If you’d like to read the full text of the report, visit Economics for Equity and the Environment

One disturbing thing was this statement put out by Robert J. Shapiro, chairman of the U.S. Climate Task Force(I took this from the Washington Post article, by the way-see link above):

“The only prospect of reaching 350 is if we came to develop a technology that would pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere — that is, pull the concentrations out of the atmosphere,” Shapiro said. “That is probably impossible without a technology that we can only conceive of today.”

Such negativity!  You know if we were under direct threat from a foreign country with better technology we wouldn’t sit around whining about how we can’t conceive of the technology to beat them.   We’d get off our butts and figure it out!  It’s just a matter of throwing the money at the right people.  And besides, what he said isn’t exactly true.  There are several technologies in the works to pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere – technologies beyond the mere realm of comprehension: read about biochar, carbon-negative cement, and oh, let’s see….we could plant some trees!  I know these answers aren’t definitive, but let’s not pretend like this is a hopeless case!

I came across this in my internet perusing and I don’t think I can really summarize it in a way that does it justice, so instead I am going to post the opening letter directly from 350.org and encourage you to visit their website.

Dear World—This is an invitation to build a movement—to take one day and use it to stop the climate crisis.

We are a group of people from around the planet—young and old, scientists and writers and activists—who have one thing in common. We know the most important number on earth: 350. And we know how to use that number to finally get global action on the worst crisis humans have ever faced. But we can only do it if you help.

A year ago, our greatest climatologist—NASA’s James Hansen—and his team produced a landmark series of studies. They showed that if we let the amount of carbon in the atmosphere top 350 parts per million, we can’t have a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.”

The bad news is we’re already past that number—we’re at 390 parts per million, which is why the Arctic is melting, why drought is spreading across the planet, why people are already dying from diseases like dengue fever and malaria occurring in places where they’ve never been seen before.

The good news: that number gives us a target to aim for. When the world’s leaders meet in Copenhagen in December to reach agreement on a new climate treaty, we need them to go farther than they’ve planned to go: we need to make sure they’ll pay attention to the latest science and put forward a plan that gets us back to safety.

So here’s the plan. On October 24, we need you to organize an action in the place where you live, something that will make that most important number visible to everyone. People in more than 1000 communities around the globe have already announced plans—they’ll be school children planting 350 trees in Bangledesh, scientists hanging banners saying 350 on the statues on Easter Island, 350 scuba divers diving underwater at the Great Barrier Reef, and a thousand more creative actions like these. At each event, people will gather for a big group photo that somehow depicts 350–and upload that photo to the web 350.org. As actions take place around the world, we’ll link all the pictures together electronically via the web–by the end of the day, we’ll have a powerful visual petition linking together the entire planet that we can deliver to the media and world leaders.

So far more than 100 nations are taking part—it’s shaping up to be to be the biggest day of grassroots action on global warming ever. But we need it to be much larger—we need you, in your village or town or city, to take part. It’s not hard—we can help you with materials and ideas. But you need to take the first step, by registering an action and starting to let your friends and neighbors know about it.

Involve groups that you’re in—everything from your church, mosque or synagogue to your local bicycle group. People want to help, especially if they see the chance for something that might actually matter. This is even more important than changing your lightbulb—this is your chance to help change the way the whole world operates. October 24 comes six weeks before those crucial UN meetings in Copenhagen. It’s a great chance to take a stand—maybe the last great chance, given what the scientists tell us about the momentum of global warming.

But it can only happen with the help of a global movement—and it’s starting to bubble up everywhere. Farmers in Cameroon, students in China, even World Cup skiers have already helped spread the word about 350. Churches have rung their bells 350 times; Buddhist monks have formed a huge 350 with their bodies against the backdrop of Himalayas. 350 translates across every boundary of language and culture. It’s clear and direct, cutting through the static and laying down a firm scientific line.

This is like a final exam for human beings. Can we muster the courage, the commitment, and the creativity to set this earth on a steady course before it’s too late? October 24 will be the joyful, powerful day when we prove it’s possible.

Please join us and register your local action today.

Onwards,
Bill McKibben – Author and Activist- USA Vandana Shiva – Physicist, Activist, Author – India David Suzuki – Scientist, Author, Activist – Canada Bianca Jagger – Chair of the World Future Council – UK Tim Flannery – Scientist, Author, Explorer -Australia Bittu Sahgal – Editor of Sanctuary magazine – India Andrew Simmons – Environmental Advocate, St. Vincent & The Grenadines Christine Loh – Environmental Advocate and Legislator – Hong Kong

P.S.—We need you to do something else, right away, that’s pretty easy. Please forward this message to anyone you know who is even remotely appropriate.

This website has everything from factsheets to stencils and art projects.  They are asking for people to take a picture of whatever they decide to do and share it with the global community.  Eco-Monkeys will be sure to take part in this event and take our picture.  I’m not quite sure what we will do yet – it may be something as simple as riding our bikes or taking a hike and spending the day appreciating nature and contemplating our role in protecting the environment.

Here is a 350 slideshow:

Even if you are not an activist with an army of followers, please take some time to think about the peril our planet is in and what you can do to make your world a better place.

Picture from http://www.simondale.net/house/index.htm

Josh sent this website to me the other day and I am shamelessly posting it because it is cool.

Here is a fellow in Wales who wanted to build a low-impact house for his family to live in.  According to his website, he built it in about four months for a cost of 3000 pounds.  His house is extremely eco-friendly with everything from a fridge cooled by air coming from the underground foundations to a compost toilet.  There are pictures of how he did it as well as tips for people who just want to reduce their impact but can’t build their own house.  Check it out!

Interview with Simon Dale(the builder) on Future Ethics:

Many people are now familiar with the term conflict-free when purchasing gemstones.  A conflict diamond is one that is mined and sold in order to finance rebellions and wars.  Seeking out gemstones that are certified as conflict-free is a good step, but we very rarely see jewelry incorporating gemstones and metals that are eco-friendly.  Until now!

I came across this site randomly – quite randomly as I do not often wear jewelry, and the only ‘quality’ pieces I own have either been bought for me by grandparents or handed down through the generations.  However if I were in the market for the fancy stuff, I would check out a store like Brilliant Earth.

Not only do they certify that all of their gemstones are conflict free, they also employ fair trade practices to compensate the diggers of the gemstones that they purchase and they donate 5% of their profits to help communities that have suffered from unethical practices in the jewelry industry.

Brilliant Earth is also eco-friendly in the sense that they use recycled metals in their jewelry.  I had never heard of a jewelry store using recycled metals but luckily this company believes in educating the public about the hazards of ore mining and had plenty of information on their website for me to read.  According to their website, they give store credit for people’s old jewelry and they also get their metals from “industrial-use metals and electronics components”.  They claim that their re-refinement process puts these metals in the same state as those that are newly mined, and thusly there is no degredation.

So far so good.  But wait, it gets better!  They also employ practices in their production process to prevent contaminants from being released into the atmosphere and have relationships with companies that use environmentally responsible practices.

I have never personally seen their jewelry and I don’t have any sort of contact with the people who run this site.  It’s just nice to see a company that  is respectful not only of the environment but also of the people who help gather the materials for their product.  I encourage anyone to check out this website and least read about the damage that can be caused to the environment through jewelry production.  Hopefully, we can try to make eco-friendly decisions concerning ALL our purchases and companies like Brilliant Earth make it just a little bit easier.

Here are a few other sites you might want to check out:

greenKarat – Jewelry company located in Houston, Texas

Sustainable Jewelry – A sustainable jewelry blog with LOTS of information

Green Jewelry – A guide to buying environmentally friendly and eco-friendly jewelry

Here is an educational video on Africa’s Conflict Diamonds:

The Egyptians are credited for some of the earliest recipes for beer. In their day the effects of human carbon imprint on the planet probably was not a consideration. Today we can look at the damage that is done simply by a single product that is accepted in society… ALCOHOL.

If you partake in the consumption of alcoholic drinks you may have never taken into consideration the damage that a single drink can cause the planet. A bottle of beer, wine or other alcoholic products are transported from the factory to the store or establishment where the consumer purchases it. This transport is most likely done with the aid of a delivery vehicle that runs on fossil fuels. Wine can come from local vineyards or from out of state but the majority of wine is international. Australia, South America, and many European countries are among top wine distributors. With further distances air transport is heavily relied on. Majority of wine is bottled in thick glass bottles that along with the wine itself can weigh on average of 2 pounds per 750ml. bottle. Twelve bottles in a case plus the weight of the box it’s self can really effect the gas efficiency of a vehicle.

Which is better bottles or cans? Well if you are at the pub go for a pint and avoid both. If you go to the store options are limited. Does your town have a good recycling program? Is the product your buying made locally or is there a long shipping distance for it to reach your store? If bottles and cans can be recycled in your area get bottles for the locally brewed and aluminum cans for the out of state brews. The shipping weight alone will help in the carbon dioxide output of the delivering. Boxed wine utilizes paper and plastics in its packaging is a little more difficult to separate for recycling. Corks for the wine is a much debated subject with distributors and connoisseurs and now come in traditional cork, screw tops and few new alternative products. While this debate continues you can always turn to your organic wine option. Most organic wine distributors will take the alternative route in their packaging as well. Don’t forget to read those labels and ask questions when in doubt.

The production of the actual alcoholic product should be taken into consideration as well as packaging a shipping. Brewing of beer creates carbon dioxide as well as the carbon dioxide put into the environment from the delivery of the product or even the trip to the store for a six-pack. Spirits, beer, and wine are all contributors of carbon dioxide in the environment. There are scientific studies that say none are worse than the other in it’s output of carbon dioxide.

Nina Shen Rostogi wrote a really informative article on the subject of carbon imprint of alcohol. Check it out here.

Alcohol is technically a depressant, not this story. This eco-monkeys article was meant for enlightenment on the subject not a sobering slap on the wrist for those who drink.

On September 17, the Obama Administration released a document detailing new fuel economy and emissions standards for auto manufacturers. Some of the proposed regulations include:

• An gradual increase in fuel economy. It’s kind of like No Child Left Behind, but for cars. Between the years 2011 and 2016, the white house is calling for a 5% increase in fuel economy per year. This starts with 23.7 miles per gallon and ends with 35.5 miles per gallon.

• In terms of fuel emissions, the document states that starting in 2016, cars sold in the U.S. would now also have to meet greenhouse gas emissions standards. The limit is put at 250 grams of carbon per mile. This has never been done before, so if it passes, it would be a first for auto manufacturers.

None of these regulations are final, however. According to an article in the New York Times: “The vehicle emissions rules can go into effect only after EPA has finalized its proposed “endangerment finding,” released in April, that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare. Today’s announcement does not finalize that finding, according to a senior EPA official. That decision is expected by next spring but could come much sooner as the Senate dives deeper into legislation that caps emissions.”

The date that has been released for the finalized rule publication is set for March, 2010.

According to the policies as outlined by the Environmental Protection Agency, these regulations would “Increase fuel economy by approximately five percent every year, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons, save the average car buyer more than $3,000 in fuel costs, [and] Conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil.”

I am pretty glad to hear this. I’m glad that automakers will be held to a higher standard and I hope that since all automakers will be required to comply with these policies, it will create competition and thus keep the prices of these vehicles down.

If you are interested in reading more, here is the plan as outlined by the EPA:

DOT Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson Propose National Program to Improve Fuel Economy and Reduce Greenhouse Gases/New Interagency Program to Address Climate Change and Energy Security

The policies have to be up for public comment for 60 days. If you would like to make a comment, here is the link you can follow for information on that procedure. It also has information on the proposal and commitment letters from several automakers:

Regulations and Standards

In case you are video-oriented, here is a video of President Obama making the original announcement back on May 19, 2009. FYI, he spends 3:30 just introducing people and, in typical fashion, he doesn’t get to his point for a while. The actual policy starts about 9:00 into it.

Tuesday, September 22 is Benefit Day for Health Alliance For Austin Musicians (HAAM).

Austin, Texas is the live music capitol of the World. No matter what your musical tastes are you can be assured you will get your fill any night of the week. People living in Austin or just passing through know that live music is a true blessing and we owe a great deal of gratitude to the many musicians that provide this service. Sadly most musicians cannot afford many services such as health care. HAAM makes these services a reality to underpaid musicians in Austin, Texas. Musicians can apply with HAAM through their website and will be able to see if they are eligible for services. For the application click here.

HAAM provides professional musicians in greater Austin access to health services. These services cover mental health, dental care, and primary health care. Seton Family of Hospitals provides the services for the primary health of musicians registered with HAAM. St. David’s Community Health provides dental care and mental health counseling is handled by SIMS Foundation. I knew Sims Ellison personally and I have a special place in my heart for the work SIMS Foundation does. I am grateful for the joined efforts with HAAM and the SIMS Foundation.

How can you participate in Benefit Day?

1)    Go support some of these musicians directly by going out and supporting live music. HAAM has a huge line up of performances to celebrate HAAM Benefit Day. Look here for the performance list.

2)    Go shopping at participating stores that will give 5% of the days proceeds to the cause. (For a list of those contributors look here)

3)    Become a HAAMbassador by volunteering! Your time and effort working with HAAM is greatly appreciated.

4)    Donating money directly to HAAM is available online through their website donation or mail in your donation to:

Health Alliance for Austin Musicians

PO Box 301496

Austin, Texas 78703-0025

I am a local musician and I appreciate HAAM for everything that they do. I encourage you to support live music and HAAM.

For more information about HAAM please visit their website here.

For more information about SIMS Foundation please visit their website here.

Came across a nifty little calculator on the EPA website today.  It allows you calculate the greenhouse gas emissions for your home and them provides tips and ideas for reducing them.  You’ll need to gather some information and set aside some time to do this.  The EPA recommends:

1. To get the most accurate results, gather your recent electric, gas, and/or oil bills so you can use real numbers for your household’s energy consumption. Remember that your energy bills vary by season, so use an average of winter and summer values if you can.
2. Allow yourself 10-15 minutes to enter the data.

Here is the link to the calculator if you are interested in Checking It Out.

Hope everyone is having a great weekend!  Josh and I are off to Counter Culture for some vegan corndogs.  Mmmm!

Found an interesting article that was published in the Boston Globe back in February of this year.  The article discusses what impact global warming may have on the human psyche.  Even the author acknowledges that research on this subject is tenuous and that reports often contradict each other, but even so, I find the speculations to be an interesting read.  I learned new terms like “Climate Change Delusion” – this is now an official illness – and “Environmental Refugee” – the article proposes that there will be 200 million of them by the year 2050.  Regardless of how much you take away from it, I think it is worth a glancing over as I’m sure we will be seeing more and more of these types of discussions in the media over the next several years.

Climate Change Takes a Mental Toll

This article got kind of long – or really long.  I’ve provided a table of contents so that you can just hop to the parts you want to read!

I. Introduction: Carbon Sequestration in the U.K.

II.  My Concerns

1. How much CO2 do they want to put under there?

2. Do we have the technology available to accomplish this?

3. How much money will this cost?

4. Is this just a big, fat load of greenwash?

5. Is this going on in the U.S.?

III. Conclusion

IV. Further Reading

I. Introduction

North Sea Coast (near Newcastle)

The other day while driving in my car, I heard a story on NPR about carbon sequestration.  According to the story, Britain has been pumping fossil fuels out of the North Sea and now there is some empty space down there.  So, rumor has it that Britain is interested in selling the space under the ocean floor to companies who would like to dump their CO2 there.  The man quoted in the article is Mike Stephenson, who is with the British Geological Survey.  He said that this could earn Britain $6 billion a year and provide 60,000 jobs.  When asked if this was dangerous for marine life or not, his words of comfort were “We can see the CO2 collecting, we know what it’s doing. So the science is telling us it looks OK.”  Yes, I’m sure that’s similar to what they told the people who lived near Chernobyl – Don’t worry folks, everything looks okay!

back to top

II. My Concerns

Here are my issues:

1. How much CO2 do they want to put under there?

Guardian.co.uk, Article: Plan to bury CO2 Under the North Sea, September 5, 2009

“Millions of tonnes of the polluting greenhouse gas carbon dioxide could be piped from the power stations that produce it and dumped underneath the North sea”

“By pumping the gas down into waterlogged rock formations and empty gas reservoirs underneath the seabed, the scientists say they could effectively dispose of decades of pollution produced by burning fossil fuels such as coal and gas.”

back to top

2. Do we have the technology available to accomplish this?

Guardian.co.uk, Article: Plan to bury CO2 Under the North Sea, September 5, 2009

“New technology to capture the carbon dioxide produced from the power stations would have to be developed, and an extensive network of underground pipes set up to carry it hundreds of miles to the coast. More importantly, scientists will have to show that the enormous bubbles of carbon dioxide they would create under the seabed are safe, stable and will not leak out over time.”  — Doesn’t sound like they are ready to even think about implementing this.

Washington Post, Article: Carbon’s Future Wagered on Carbon Capture, August 11, 2009

“Yet carbon capture and storage remains the elusive holy grail of the coal industry, an idea that could contain the damage inflicted by coal-burning power plants but a technology that remains expensive, energy intensive and largely untested. Even optimists say it will not be commercially available for another six to 10 years. Pessimists say it might take much longer, and may never be ready for widespread use without attaching a punishingly high price to carbon.”

back to top

3. How much money will this cost?

Guardian.co.uk, Article: Plan to bury CO2 Under the North Sea, September 5, 2009

“The biggest obstacle, however, will be cost. The DTI report estimates the CCS storage scheme would cost between £34 and £93 to prevent each tonne of carbon dioxide being emitted, putting about 1p to 2.3p on to the price of a unit of electricity. It says this is about the same as the cost of building offshore wind farms and developing tidal and wave energy systems.”

Washington Post, Article: Carbon’s Future Wagered on Carbon Capture, August 11, 2009

“The huge carbon capture and storage devices are hugely expensive, too. AEP executives estimate that the cost of carbon capture for a modest-size coal plant of about 235 megawatts would start at $700 million. That works out to about $100 for a ton of carbon dioxide, far above the projections made by the Environmental Protection Agency about prices under a cap-and-trade scheme similar to one passed by the House in June. MIT put the cost of carbon capture and storage at $50 to $70 a ton.”

back to top

4. Is this just a big, fat load of greenwash?

Guardian.co.uk, Article: Plan to bury CO2 Under the North Sea, September 5, 2009

“Critics argue the idea is an expensive and probably unworkable smokescreen for continued reliance on fossil fuels.”  –I tend to agree with this, myself.

Washington Post, Article: Carbon’s Future Wagered on Carbon Capture, August 11, 2009

“There is no credible pathway towards prudent greenhouse gas stabilization targets without CO2 emissions reduction from existing coal power plants,” Ernest Moniz, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of President Obama’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, said in a report earlier this year. “We urgently need technology options for these plants and policies that incentivize implementation.” — Yes, this is in reference to U.S. carbon capture, but I agree!  Instead of spending so much money on carbon capture, can we spend that money on technology promoting carbon reduction?!

back to top

5. Is this going on in the U.S.?

Washington Post, Article: Carbon’s Future Wagered on Carbon Capture, August 11, 2009

“On Monday the Obama administration awarded $20 million of that to a program that uses supersonic shockwaves to compress carbon for storage, on top of $408 million in stimulus money awarded to two other carbon pilot projects. It has pledged $1 billion more to a model plant called FutureGen. If the Waxman-Markey climate bill becomes law, a new Carbon Storage Research Corp. would pump another $1.1 billion a year into researching this nascent technology, and first movers would get billions of dollars more in bonus emission allowances that could be sold.”

NPR, Marketplace, September 11, 2009

“Stephenson says the U.K. should follow the example of Texas, which has a similar geology. The state is already promoting itself as “the CO2 sink for the U.S.”" –GAAAAH!

back to top

III. Conclusion

My conclusion is that I’m scared.  It concerns me that we are just trying to hide these emissions rather than reduce them.  It seems like a lot of money and research for something that is, at best, just a stop-gap.  It blew my mind to hear the guy on NPR blithely chatter away about how much money this is going to generate in the U.K.  If it is costing so much money, wouldn’t putting these funds towards alternative energy research also have the potential to generate revenue and provide plenty of jobs?  I know that I am not the most educated person when it comes to this issue, but at soon as I heard the NPR report, alarms started going off in my head – Danger, Will Robinson! Danger, Will Robinson!   – and none of the articles I’ve read have provided even the smallest modicum of comfort.

back to top

IV. Further Reading

NPR, Marketplace, September 11, 2009

Washington Post, Article: Carbon’s Future Wagered on Carbon Capture, August 11, 2009

Guardian.co.uk, Article: Plan to bury CO2 Under the North Sea, September 5, 2009

In fact, the Guardian has  an entire section of its website dedicated to Carbon Capture

Business Week, Article: Is 2009 the Year of Carbon Storage?, February16, 2009

back to top

Lakes and waterways are drying up, the Texas land is parched and cooking at degrees well above 100, and forcasted rain never comes. Us Texans are suffering the worst drought season in years. In Austin, our two sources of water are drying up fast: Lake Buchanan, and Lake Travis. Lake Travis is 54% down and vegetation is growing thick on the newly exposed floor, and all but one boat ramp is closed.

This land was never visible, but now, it grows thick grass. Sad.

So naturally, the community is worried about their water and how much longer it will last.

Usually, it doesn’t occur to people how water is being wasted. Of course the most obvious things stand out, like running faucets. But think about it, where are gallons and gallons of water wasted?

Carwashing!

Since the newly implemented and enforced water restrictions on Texas water usage, I have been hesitant to wash my two cars at all. ( my poor supra needs a bath! )

But I recently discovered a new way to get the muck off my car. A company called WaterSmart has employed a carwashing team that uses less than 10 ounces of water to clean your car. You can read the article HERE.

Also, you should check at the end of the article to read about a product that dissolves the dirt, which will prevent scratching the paint.

Don’t fear! I worry about my paint job as much as anyone, but these products lift and dissolve the dirt away. Click here to visit their website to learn about the products and technique and to get an idea on what they are doing to conserve water usage.( www.watersmartautocare.com )

This is a really neat thing: where typically we use 20 gallons on a wash, we can save that water by using a few ounces to get our cars clean!

I hope that this company and the innovative eco-friendly ways to wash your car will become well known and widely used. I would love to hear that all self-serve or service carwash companies are now switching to this technique!

Spread the word and help us save our water and care for our home, planet Earth! Visit the WaterSmart carwash group on Friday at the Frost Bank tower downtown and support this movement! If you can’t make it on Monday, then you can visit them on Mondays at the St. David’s hospital’s parking garage downtown on Red River.

You can also purchase the product on their website. Click this link.

I took some pictures back in April of the Lake, then I went out today and took some pictures of it now. There is a dramatic difference in the levels. In the first picture, you can see a boat with a blue roof. In the third picture you can see where the boat has moved to.

Lake Travis in April

Lake Travis in April

Lake Travis in September

Lake Travis in September '09

I have always wondered about companies that falsely claimed to have products that were eco-friendly.  Turns out there is a term for this:  Greenwashing

I began to research the term to see if any of the products I am currently using fall into this category and I found several bits of information that may help you fellow eco-monkeys make the same determinations.

www.sinsofgreenwashing.org

There is a company called TerraChoice Environmental Marketing which is an environmental marketing agency.  Back in 2007, they produced a report called “The 6 Sins of Greenwashing” in which they sampled 1,018 products that made all made environmental claims.  Out of all of those products, TerraChoice only found ONE product that did not commit one of the 6 sins.

The 6 Sins of Greenwashing are:

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off – This applies to companies that claim to use recycled products, but their manufacturing processes have negative environmental impacts.

2. Sin of No Proof – Products that make claims at being eco-friendly or being free from animal testing, but provide no proof.

3. Sin of Vagueness – Products that make a claim that is easily misunderstood.  Like “all natural”  There are several naturally-existing materials that are toxic (arsenic?).

4. Sin of Irrelevance – Products make claims like being CFC free.  Um, hello?  CFCs were banned before I was born.

5. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils – Eco-friendly claims that distract the consumer from how bad the product actually is.  Example from the report: Organic cigaretttes.

6. Sin of Fibbing – Outright lying!  My favorite from the report is: “A dishwasher detergent that purports to be packaged in “100% recycled paper”, and yet the container is plastic”.  Duh.

In 2009, TerraChoice updated that report with “The Seven Sins of Greenwashing“.  The new sin is:

7. Sin of Worshipping False Labels – This is where companies make up their own eco-friendly label when the product nor the company is eco-friendly at all.  Liars!

www.sinsofgreenwashing.org

So how can you tell if a product you are using commits one of these sins?  You’re going to have to do a bit of research.  One helpful site is the Greenwashing Index where people can put of ads for products they’ve seen.  Other members of the site will provide feedback based on their research and rate the products.  You can put up ads you’ve found or use their search tool to see if your product is already there.  Or you can check out the environmental page at CorpWatch whose mission is to “expose multinational corporations that that profit from war, fraud, environmental, human rights and other abuses, and to provide critical information to foster a more informed public and an effective democracy”.

One helpful site to find more environmentally friendly products  is the Consumer Reports “Greener Choices” website which breaks down products by category to help you find the most eco-friendly versions of what you are looking for.

If you are interested in taking action against Greenwashers, I recommend the StopGreenWash website put out by Greenpeace.

It turns out that “greenwashing” is much more prevalent than I suspected it would be.  I am definately going to have to research my purchases more closely!