Author: GreenRightNow.com

From Green Right Now Reports

New research by U.S. environmental and geo-science academicians shows a distinct warming trend in the nation’s breadbasket over the last two centuries.

The scientists drew that conclusion after examining 65,987 weather records, recording the daily mean temperatures since 1828. Those weather observations, made by doctors in pioneer forts and later Weather Bureau officials, helped Dorian J. Burnette and David Stahle of the University of Arkansas, with the help of geographer Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina, reconstruct the climate of Manhattan, Kansas, in the center of the nation. The scientists’ findings are published in the March 15 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate.

What they found was that 19th century temperatures were notably cooler than those in the 20th Century and the first decade of the 21st Century.

“It still gets cold today, but the trend from 1828 to the present day is unmistakable,” said Dr. Burnette, who holds a degree in environmental dynamics, in a news release. “There is a warming trend in the cold extremes of about 5 degrees Celsius since 1855.”

Burnette said he used daily data from seven historical stations and four modern stations in Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, to determine the daily mean temperature for each day dating back to July 1, 1828. He then computed seasonal and annual temperature means for each year, and looked at how these numbers have changed over time.

Calculating the most extreme warm and cold events for each year, Burnette found that the cold extremes are changing relative to the warm extremes, and are “warming at almost twice the rate as the warm extremes,” according to a news release.

The upsurge in warmer temperatures since 1855 tracks with the scientific belief that temperatures have been warming incrementally worldwide in concert with the increase in carbon emissions in the air from burning fossil fuels, a phenomenon of the industrial age.

Dr. Burnette’s data also show an accelerated warming trend since 1969, again fueled by a rise in cold season temperature extremes.

This is consistent with what we see globally on average,” Dr. Burnette said.

Burnette also studied records from the U.S. Army Surgeon General, the Smithsonian Institution and the Signal Service housed in the National Archives in his quest to find the detailed weather information from these early observers. In interpreting the data, the team developed a computer program that could help check readings against others in the region, to make sure that inaccurate data was excluded or to interpret weather vernacular that was used in the 19th century.

By Melissa Segrest
Green Right Now

Selling ivory is illegal – except when it’s not.

A confusing array of restrictions, bans and occasional legal mass sales make tracking and finding illegal ivory – made from the tusks of elephants slaughtered in spite of bans enacted decades ago — a challenge for the best of sleuths.

Now, an international UN-sanctioned group that controls the protection of elephants and the legal sale of ivory is considering a request from two African nations to conduct one-time massive sales of stockpiled ivory — and that worries conservationists. They fear it will only fuel the market for ivory, harm the imperiled African elephant and have a dangerous cascading effect on African rainforests.

“In the last 30 years, the African elephant population has declined to about 35 percent of its original numbers. The population is now less than 500,000, from a population of 1.3 million,” said Samuel Wasser, a conservation biologist at the University of Washington.

The African elephant is classified as endangered, the highest threat level. That means it could become extinct if not protected.

Despite the legality of these one-time sales, the appetite for ivory, especially in Asian countries, only increases. Only three countries — China, Japan and Thailand –  can legally buy and sell ivory.

Even though there are restrictions on those countries’ purchases, the sales encourage illegal hunting, say concerned researchers and scientists.

“More than 8 percent of the elephant population is being poached annually,” Wasser (along with a 27-member team of conservationists) wrote in a recent article in Science.

In 1989, the sale of ivory was banned by the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flauna and Flora. That ban was initially successful, Wasser said.

“Poaching dropped dramatically” thanks to money given to African nations to protect elephants. “It was so successful, the money to keep poachers under control started to dwindle. Asian countries still wanted ivory, and poaching has increased sharply since 2000. As the money disappeared, things went downhill.”

In 2007, the international trade group allowed four African nations to lower the threat level of their elephants (to “threatened” status) and have a one-time sale of their ivory stockpiles. After that, a 9-year moratorium on ivory sales was imposed on those countries.

Now, Tanzania and Zambia are asking that they be allowed to sell their ivory stockpiles.

“Zambia and Tanzania are major sources for Africa’s illegal ivory sale. Tons of contraband ivory from those countries have been seized three times in the last decade.

“Now they’re asking for a lesser threat status, even though they are the worst offenders,” Wasser said. “They (the two countries) have egregiously participated in the illegal sale of ivory in Africa.” (The origin of the ivory can by confirmed by DNA analysis.)

The group that regulates international wildlife trade, at the center of the argument, has released its own statement in response to some of the complaints. The panel will meet on Saturday, March 13 in Qatar, to consider this and other issues.

The rise of the middle class in China is a factor in the increase of illegal ivory sales. There, the burnished product made from elephant tusks is considered prestigious.

“The price of ivory went from $200 a kilo in 2004 to $1,800 a kilo in 2009,” Wasser said. “It went up nine-fold in five years.”

Organized crime has gotten involved in the illegal ivory business, because it is a high-profit, low-risk venture. More liberal global trade laws have made it easier to ship large amounts of contraband, Wasser added.

“Prosecutions are rare and penalties are very small.

“You can buy ivory on Google and eBay,” he added, although eBay announced that it took steps to stop those illegal sales last year.

The threat to elephants is part of an even larger concern.

The Central African rain forests where they roam “are the second most important in the world for carbon capture,” Waller said. When elephants disappear, the eco-system becomes imbalanced and the effect cascades to other animals and plants.

As the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species considers Zambia’s and Tanzania’s requests to legally sell their ivory stockpiles, Wasser fears that the organization is more concerned with politics than with saving endangered species.

“It is unbelievable that these proposals have even been made. Now it’s looking like it will pass,” he said.

“How could that be?”

For more information, Wasser recommends the Species Survival Network, the wildlife trade monitoring network Traffic and the Environmental Investigation Agency.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

From Green Right Now Reports

New York University released its Climate Action Plan (CAP) today, which outlines the first steps toward achieving carbon neutrality by 2040.

The plan was developed after the university took a greenhouse gas inventory, and it outlines the projects and methods it will use to reduce or offsets its emissions.

NYU officials credited both Mayor Bloomberg’s PlanNYC Climate Challenge and the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) for initiating and helping shape its actions. The school is a signor of the ACUPCC .

The goals:

• NYU will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions per square foot by 30 percent from FY 2006 levels by FY 2017. This plan aims to reduce emissions in “an immediate, ambitious and tangible way,” school officials said.

• NYU pledges to achieve “climate neutrality” (i.e. net zero emissions) by FY 2040 by upgrading buildings through efficiency and conservation, planning for green building, generating cleaner on-site and renewable energy,  encouraging behavior changes and offsetting remaining emissions.

“Across the University – from academics to financial and space planning to sustainability – we are striving to plan for the long-term,” said Michael Alfano, NYU’s Executive Vice President. “This Climate Action Plan fits within that template, relying on a rigorous analysis to point the way toward a 30-year goal of attaining carbon neutrality.”

Cecil Scheib, Director of Energy and Sustainability, noted in the news release that NYU has already made progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, cutting them by 20 percent over the past three years.

“NYU total emissions have dropped from a fiscal year (FY06) peak of 171,000 MTCE to 136,000 MTCE in FY 2009. This decrease in global warming pollution is a measurable component of New York City’s total emissions, and represents a major step toward confronting the challenge of global warming,” Scheib said.

NYU, which is located in Greenwich Village and comprises 14 schools and colleges,  intends to fulfill its CAP by retrofitting buildings to use less energy, and prioritizing those retrofits to maximize emissions reductions.

The school — already the largest university purchaser of wind power — plans to use more cleaner energy by expanding a cogeneration power plant on site, which is expected to mitigate nearly one-quarter of NYU’s baseline FY 2006 emissions. The university will also replace fuel oil used to heat buildings with cleaner energy sources.

NYU is exploring the possibility of adding wind and solar power to its on-site energy plans, projects that it hopes will be financially feasible because of a positive return on investment, buttressed by state and federal incentives.

Whatever emissions the school can’t reduce or eliminate with these methods will be mitigated through local, socially and educationally redeeming offset programs.

NYU’s Manager of Sustainability Initiatives, Jeremy Friedman said that the CAP plan “fuses” the short-term reductions required by the Mayoral Challenge with the broader goals of the ACUPCC.

And the program does not forget the educational opportunities provided by the changing times. NYU expects to foster a campus-wide appreciation of sustainability through expanded course offerings both at the main campus and the affiliated Polytechnic Institute of NYU.

“The size and scope of this problem,” said Friedman, “are equaled only by our collective capacity to confront it together – by reducing greenhouse gas emissions as individuals, and by educating the next generation of leaders in the struggle to create a more sustainable and just world.”

From Green Right Now Reports

When the New York Botanical Garden opens its new education center in Midtown Manhattan next month, city dwellers will have better access to horticulture and floral design classes.

The New York Botanical Garden Midtown Education Center, located at 20 W. 44th Street (between 5th and 6th avenues), will offer adult education and professional courses that could lead to green jobs or help further the goals of urban gardeners, florists and locavores.

Among the inaugural offerings will be the Lynden B. Miller Lecture Series: The Challenges and Rewards of Urban Horticulture. Hosted by New York Botanical Garden Board Member and Director of the Conservatory Garden in Central Park Lynden B. Miller, the three-part series will give guidance to those interested in growing their own produce, greenery and flowers; and it will highlight the successful practices of New York’s notable public horticulturists.

The series lectures, on Wednesdays, from 6 to 7 p.m., will include:

• Up in the Air: Lessons in Urban Horticulture from the High Line, April 21, with Patrick Cullina, Vice President of Horticulture and Park Operations, the High Line

• Our Future, Our Food: The Role of Community Gardens in Urban Agriculture, May 19, with Karen Washington, community activist and gardener, and Member of the Botanical Garden’s Board

• Battery Park City: Maintaining a Public Park with Organic Methods, June 9, with Eric T. Fleisher, Director of Horticulture at Battery Park City Parks Conservancy

The center also will offer lectures in garden and floral design with area experts, such as Ken Smith, the artist and landscape architect who designed the award-winning roof garden at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA).

Those who want to learn more can attend the center’s open house on Saturday, April 10, from 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

The New York Botanical Garden, located in the Bronx, offers seven certificate programs in the botanical arts and horticulture. Its classes in Manhattan, like classes at its other satellites, will be taught by experienced professionals.

From Green Right Now Reports

Calling themselves “Clean Energy Patriots,” dozens of environmental leaders today asked the U.S. Senate to quit serving the interests of “Big Oil” and take action on behalf of Americans who want clean energy and climate solutions.

The leaders from nearly 50 environmental and social responsibility groups signed a declaration at the U.S. Capitol. It demands  that the Senate quit stalling on climate action, and kicks off a 40-day countdown until Earth Day, which celebrates its 40th anniversary on April 22.

They urged citizens to join in what they are calling the Earth Day Revolution.

“The first Earth Day was a success because 20 million Americans demonstrated an urgent need for environmental protection and action,” said Kathleen Rogers, President, Earth Day Network. “Together, we can make the 40th anniversary of Earth Day a pivotal moment in the environmental movement. We will use the next 40 days to build momentum around a demand for comprehensive climate legislation…”

Clean energy legislation would not only protect the environment, it would create jobs and improve national security, the leaders said.

“For too long Big Oil and their special interest allies have stood in the way of a clean energy revolution. It’s time for lawmakers to listen to the millions of citizens who will recognize this Earth Day by demanding the Senate gets working to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation,” said Gene Karpinski, President of the League of Conservation Voters. “We need more Clean Energy Patriots this year. We need an Earth Day Revolution, not just another celebration.”

The campaign will wind up with a Climate Rally on the Sunday after Earth Day, on April 25.

The following groups have signed the Earth Day Declaration:

1Sky

Audubon

American Hunters and Shooters

American Rivers

American Values Network

Campus Progress

Center for American Progress Action Fund

Clean Water Action

Chesapeake Climate Action Network

Climate Protection Action Fund

Climate Solutions

Defenders of Wildlife

Democracia Ahora

Earth Day Network

Environment America

Environmental Defense Action Fund

Environmental Law and Policy Center

Green for All

Hip Hop Caucus

Interfaith Power and Light

La Onda Verde

League of Conservation Voters

National Catholic Rural Life Conference

National Wildlife Federation

NWF Campus Ecology

Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund

Oceana

Operation Free

Rock the Vote

Sierra Club

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

SACE

Southern Energy Network

StudentPIRGs

SustainUS

Truman National Security Project

Union of Concerned Scientists

Veterans for Common Sense

Voces Verdes

World Wildlife Fund

The Wilderness Society

(The piece posted here is the Introduction to Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy, and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment by David Kirby. The new book (March 2010)  examines the environmental contamination and heath impacts of industrial livestock production.)

Many Americans have no idea where their food comes from, and many have no desire to find out.

That is unfortunate.

Every bite we take has had some impact on the natural environment, somewhere in the world. As the planet grows more crowded, and more farmers turn to industrialized methods to feed millions of new mouths, that impact will only worsen.

The willful ignorance of our own food’s provenance is curious, given our Discovery Channel-like fascination with the way in which everything else in our modern world is made. Some consumers will spend hours online reading up on cars, cosmetics, or clothes, searching out the most meticulously crafted or environmentally healthy products they can find, then run down to the supermarket and load their carts with bacon, butter, chicken, and eggs without thinking for a second where — or how — any of those goods were produced.

This is starting to change, of course. More Americans are coming to realize that the modern production of food — especially to provide for our affluent, protein-rich diet — has a direct and sometimes negative impact on the environment, the well-being of animals, rural communities, and human health itself. Some have joined in a contemporary consumer revolt of sorts that has put the corporate food industry on the defensive in recent years.

At the center of the storm are the large-scale, mechanized megafarms where hundreds of thousands of cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys are fed and fattened for market, all within the confines of enclosed buildings or crowded outdoor lots.

Government and industry call these massive compounds “confined [or concentrated] animal feeding operations,” or CAFOs (usually pronounced KAYfohs), though most people know them simply as “factory farms.” Chances are you have seen them from above, while flying in an airplane: long White buildings lined up in tightly packed rows of three, four, or many more.

CAFOs are where most of our animal protein — our milk, cheese, butter, yogurt, eggs, chicken, turkey, bacon, sausage, cold cuts, ribs, pork chops, and, increasingly, beef and fish — comes from these days. Old MacDonald’s farm — with his big red barn and clucking chicks in the yard — is quickly fading away into a romanticized past. Today, MacDonald would most likely be working as a contract grower for some conglomerate, raising tens of thousands of animals inside giant enclosures according to strict instructions dictated by the company, which typically owns the livestock but is not responsible for the thousands of tons of waste left behind before the survivors are trucked off to slaughter.

Large companies with kitchen-table names like Perdue, Tyson, Smithfield, Cargill, ADM, and Land O’Lakes now control much of the poultry and livestock production in the United States. They own the animals, they control the all-important processing and packing plants, they often operate their own distribution networks, and they sell an array of brands to consumers in the Supermarket.

This “vertical integration” model of production — some would call it an old-fashioned, illegal trust in need of a Teddy Roosevelt-style buster — leaves small and independent growers at such an obvious disadvantage that many of them give up animal agriculture altogether. Two percent of U.S. livestock facilities now raise 40 percent of all animals,¹ and the vast majority of pigs, chickens, and dairy cows are produced inside animal factories.²

Livestock and poultry are very big business in America. Like all industries, agribusiness has barons that wield extraordinary political and economic clout, with billions at their disposal to spend on K Street lobbying, local and national political campaigns, saturation advertising, feel-good PR (see: “California, happy cows”), and other means of creating a favorable business climate for themselves.

And like many big industries, factory farms are major contributors to air, water, and land pollution. Science and government have concluded without a doubt that CAFOs are responsible for discharging millions of tons of contaminants from animal manure into the environment every year — much of it illegally.

Unlike the steel, auto, or coal industries, livestock operations are not subject to the same stringent rules, regulations, laws, and controls on environmental discharges. After all, what could be more important than the guarantee of an abundant, safe, and affordable food supply? What could be more sacrosanct in American legend and law than the farms and farmers who make sure our food gets to the national dinner table night after night?

Besides, how could a farm be considered a factory? There are no smokestacks on a farm. There are no chemical plants or refineries, and very few vehicles. Where, then, is all that supposed pollution coming from, and how much of a problem could there actually be?

Consider this:

• Each year, the United States produces more than one ton of “dry matter” (the portion remaining after water is removed) animal waste for every resident,³ and animal feeding operations yield one hundred times more waste than all U.S. human sewage treatment plants.⁴
• While human sewage is treated to kill pathogens, animal waste is not. Hog manure has ten to one hundred times more concentrated pathogens than human waste,⁵ yet the law would never permit untreated human waste to be kept in vast “lagoons,” or sprayed onto fields, as is the case with manure.
• Manure can contain pathogens, antibiotics, drug-resistant bacteria, hormones, heavy metals, and other compounds that can seriously impact human health, aquatic life, and wildlife when introduced into the environment, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
• The eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay produces one million tons of manure a year, enough to fill a football stadium “to the top row, including all the concourses, locker rooms, and concession areas.”⁶
• Agricultural waste is the number-one form of well-water contaminants in the United States, where at least 4.5 million people are exposed to dangerously high nitrate levels in their drinking water. ⁷
• A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study of well water in nine Midwestern states showed that 13 percent of the supply had nitrate levels above the EPA standard of ten milligrams per liter.⁸
• Feedlot odors contain some 170 separate chemicals,⁹ many of them known to cause respiratory ailments, diarrhea, depression, violent behavior, and other health problems.
• Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than cars, a UN report warns.¹⁰

Animal-factory proponents say that CAFOs are the most cost-effective method in the world of producing meat, milk, and eggs. They credit modern American agriculture with yielding the cheapest food in human history — which is hard to refute — and also the safest, which is debatable.

Animal industrialists say that by confining poultry and livestock to CAFOs — as opposed to letting them roam free on ranges, pastures, and fields — they are providing warm and clean environments where farm animals can thrive, free from the threats of the elements, predators, or even attacks from other farm animals. The delivery of food, water, and veterinary care becomes more efficient, they contend, and animals can be moved more quickly to market, increasing profitability.

Besides, according to these industrialists, consumers demand cheap, lean, uniform cuts of meat, and using CAFOs is the only possible way to deliver that.

But animal-factory opponents, whose ranks are growing — they are not only consumers, but scientists, politicians, and farmers, as well — charge that the only way CAFO production can be profitable is by passing along, or “externalizing,” certain costs associated with raising so many animals in such a small place.

In 2008, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production released a landmark report on CAFOs. It reached some very sobering conclusions about their impact on our health, the environment, rural communities, farm workers, food safety, animal welfare, and the looming threat of evolving microbes — including antibiotic-resistant E. coli, MRSA, and, of course, swine flu virus.

The Pew report reminds us that the price of protein, given the externalities of animal-factory production, often goes well beyond the price tag in your grocer’s aisle.

“These ‘externalities’ may include anything from changes in property values near industrial farming operations, to health costs from polluted air, water, and soil, and spreading resistant infections or diseases of animal origin, to environmental degradation or cleanup costs — all of which are ‘paid’ by the public,” the Pew Commission said, “even though they are not included in the cost of producing or buying the meat, poultry, eggs, and milk that modern industrial animal agriculture provides.”¹¹

Animal Factory is not strictly an anti-CAFO book, though many in the agricultural community will perceive it that way. I do not call for an end to industrial animal production, nor do I draw any personal conclusions myself. Informed consumers — whether of food or of information — are vital to a healthy democracy. I would never dream of telling people what to eat or, more important, what not to eat. But we all have a responsibility, even an ethical obligation, to know where our food comes from, and what impact its production has on the environment and public health, before we take it home and fry it up in a pan.

Wherever possible, I have tried to include voices from the animal-production industry and other CAFO supporters. Many farmers believe that industrial animal production is the only option open to them if they are to remain in farming, and they are grateful to the large companies for providing steady contracts and a stable economic environment for them to survive.

One powerful argument for agribusiness is that it offers a lower retail price of food to shoppers. For consumers, factory-farmed meat, milk, and eggs are usually considerably more affordable than their organic, free-range, or “sustainably produced” counterparts. Most working families do not have the luxury of buying high-end, “boutique” protein. Some opponents of CAFOs would counterargue that families should simply cut down on the animal products they buy.

I am not a vegetarian, and you will occasionally find me in line for fast food, so I have no business telling others how to eat. Food — like sex, politics, and religion — is an intensely personal, emotional, and complicated subject.

Moreover, farmers are not evil people. The farmers I got to know, including those who operate CAFOs, seemed to genuinely care about the environment, the animals, their communities, and the quality and safety of the food they produced.

On the other hand, I cannot dismiss or forget what I witnessed firsthand in my three years of reporting this story. I met with people living within smelling distance of animal factories in the chicken belts of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, in the hog belt of North Carolina, in the upper Midwestern CAFO states of Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, and in the arid western dairy regions of Texas, central California, and the Yakima Valley of Washington.

Everywhere I went, the story was the same: CAFOs had fouled the air, spoiled the water, threatened property values, changed the face of local agriculture, and made life miserable for thousands of people, though certainly not everybody.

Sadly, I could only tell a fraction of the stories I heard. This book is not an encyclopedic history of all forms of animal production in the United States. Many people, for example, will notice and perhaps criticize the paucity of information about the raising of beef cattle and farmed fish in America. Though I am not trying to somehow “clear” beef of any responsibility, I do think that its production is the least problematic of all CAFO-related protein; most U.S. beef cattle are still owned and raised by independent producers — on open pasture, grassland, or through grazing permits on federal land — and spend only the last few months of their lives being fattened on grain in massive feedlots, which most certainly qualify as CAFOs, with all their attendant environmental issues. (Another reason I did not write about beef feedlots more is that, aside from residents of Yakima Valley, they were not an issue for any of the people I profiled.)

As for fish farms, they certainly present challenges that keep some environmentalists up at night, including farmed-salmon escapees that introduce harmful pests such as sea lice and viral diseases that infect wild fish populations. One could write an entire book on the environmental impact of fish farms alone. On the other hand, I have never heard anyone complain about foul odors or noxious gases coming from fish farms.

Animal factories of every stripe are currently under fire. So what does that mean for the future of CAFOs? Will they be reformed into universal acceptability? Will they be litigated into oblivion? Will they be driven out of the country? The truth is, none of those things is likely.

Only time will tell how this dramatic saga plays out. But humankind may not have the last word on whether CAFOs will be with us in twenty years.

That decision will belong to nature.

And nature did not intend for animals to live by the hundreds or thousands, crammed together inside buildings, raised with pharmaceutical products, with no access to grass, sunlight, or the clean, healthy scent of outdoor air.

NOTES

1. USDA Agricultural Research Service, “National Program 206: Manure and Byproduct Utilization Action Plan,” 2005, http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=409616&showpars=true&fy=2008.

2. USDA National Statistics Service, “Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations,” 2006, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1259.

3. USDA Agricultural Research Service, “FY-2005 Annual Report: Manure and Byproduct Utilization,” 2006, http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?np_code=206&docid=13337.

4. Charles P. Gerba and James E. Smith, Jr., “Sources of Pathogenic Microorganisms and Their Fate During Land Application of Wastes,” Journal of Environmental Quality 34, no. 1 (2004): 42-48, http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/34/1/42.pdf.

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Detecting and Mitigating the Environmental Impact of Fecal Pathogens Originating from Confined Animal Feeding Operations: Review,” EPA/600/R-06/021, September 2005, http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r06021/600r06021.htm.

6. J. Warrick and T. Shields, “Md. Counties Awash in Pollution-Causing Nutrients,” Washington Post, October 3, 1997.

7. B. T. Nolan, B. C. Ruddy, K. J. Hitt, and D. R. Helsel, “A National Look at Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water,” Water Conditioning and Purification 39, no. 12 (1998): 76-79, http://www.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/nutrients/pubs/wcp_v39_no12/.

8. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, “A Survey of the Quality of Water Drawn from Domestic Wells in Nine Midwest States,” September 1998, http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/statistics/environmental.

9. Confined Livestock Air Quality Committee of the USDA Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, Air Quality Research and Technology Transfer, “Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,” July 12, 2000, 7, http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r04042/600r04042.pdf.

10. H. Steinfeld et al, Livestock’s Long Shadow-Environmental Issues and Options (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006), http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM.

11. Pew Commision on Industrial Animal Production, “Putting Mean on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America,” a Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2008, http://www.ncifap.org
The above is an excerpt from the book Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy, and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment by David Kirby. The above excerpt is a digitally scanned reproduction of text from print. Although this excerpt has been proofread, occasional errors may appear due to the scanning process. Please refer to the finished book for accuracy.

Copyright © 2010 David Kirby, author of Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy, and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment

David Kirby is a Huffington Post contributor and author of the New York Times bestseller Evidence of Harm, winner of the 2005 Investigative Reporters and Editors Award for Best Book, and finalist for the New York Public Library Helen Bernstein award for Excellence in Journalism. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

From Green Right Now Reports

PECO, FirstEnergy and PPL Utilities are working together on an environmental project that will help Pennsylvania residents lower their energy usage — and get rid of clunker appliances.

The energy and utility companies announced today that they have set up an appliance recycling center at JACO Environmental Inc. in Hatfield where they will turn in old, energy-gobbling refrigerators or freezers or inefficient, but working window air conditioning units.

The companies will collect the outdated appliances from customers, who will get paid — $35 for a junker refrigerator, and $25 for an old AC unit — and haul it away for free. About 80 percent of Pennsylvania’s residents are served by these utilities and will qualify to participate.

State law requiring energy companies to help customers reduce energy use is the impetus behind the project. Customers who quit running an unneeded extra fridge can expect to save, on average $150 a year on their home energy bills. In the aggregate, if power consumers reduce their usage, they can help the utilities achieve the energy reductions mandated by Pennsylvania’s Act 129.

That law requires all state electric utilities to help customers reduce energy use by 1 percent by May 31, 2011 and 3 percent by May 31, 2013.

Utilities also must reduce energy demand during the 100 highest use hours of the year by 4.5 percent by May 31, 2013, according to PECO.

Find out more at the PECO website on “Smart Ideas,” an array of programs designed to help customers save energy and money.

The energy efficiency programs cost residential customers about $1.50 additional on their monthly energy bills. The new appliance collection program is expected to create 40 new green jobs.

By Barbara Kessler
Green Right Now

Every so often I pause and wonder about the Rocky Mountain wolves, which were de-listed from protection under the Endangered Species Act in 2009 and hunted for sport for the first time in decades.

I have thought about the wolves periodically all this winter, as they’ve been hunted in Idaho. As of today, 172 wolves have been killed there, just shy of the 220 kill limit set by the state, where the wolf season ends March 31. Last fall, in Montana, 72 wolves were killed, just short of the 75 wolf limit.

I’m not sure why their plight touched me so much. I think it’s their intelligence and curiosity that tugs at my emotions. Sensing humans nearby, they will peek out from their cover to see, only to get shot. And there’s the fact that they’re pack animals, dependent on an enduring family structure and very much like us in that regard.

The wolves have been top of mind for others. Many environmentalists have been furious about the hunting and want the wolves brought back under ESA protection. They’ve sued and a hearing is anticipated in federal court this spring. They argue that the wolf population, which stands at around 1,200 in the three U.S. states they’ve repopulated, should not be considered “recovered” until the total is closer to 2,000. Their scientists say this would ensure a healthy population and enough family packs that could interbreed across distances.

The federal guidelines for the wolves’ recovery, though, only require that the states leave 300 wolves alive — an unsustainable level say groups such as EarthJustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council and others that are suing.

There are ranchers, though, who would argue that’s more than enough wolves for the modern West, which has tense co-existence with these animals. Even more than tense when wolves take a swipe out of a sheep herd or run a lethal assault on groups of calves.

Environmentalists respond that ranchers are entitled to reimbursement for livestock losses, as well as help from groups like Defenders of Wildlife that assist ranchers with techniques to protect livestock. They also point out that ranchers can legally shoot predator wolves.

There’s another argument made on behalf of wolves — that they’re necessary top-level predators.

It doesn’t take a degree in environmental biology to understand that the Rocky Mountain region needs healthy predators in its wild areas. Top predators elevate and assure vigorous animal populations throughout the food chain. That’s how nature intended it.

If humans remove the top predators, they risk a cascading negative effect on wildlife systems. Or as my husband says, they risk coyotes. When the wolves are gone, the coyotes will become the top predators in the once Wild West. Will we be better off? Then we’ll have to shoot all the coyotes. (People already do this with little provocation.) What’s next? A handful of wolverine. They’re so scarce, you can barely find them.

But you get the idea. We can squeeze down on the entire system, until we have just a handful of smaller carnivores, a few hundred birds of prey. We’d have a glorified zoo. See how the system is out of whack?

And even as I write this I can hear some rancher saying, so we restore the West on my back? At what price? My herd?

After awhile, the back and forth will wear you out. Leaving aside the debate over how many wolves are too many or too few. One thing seems true: the great Mountain West  just ain’t what it used to be, and redefining matters won’t be easy.

Ron Aasheim, a spokesman for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, says the answer lies in finding a good balance. And, he adds, that will be discovered at some point below today’s levels of wolves. How can you tell there are too many? Easy, they’re claiming too much livestock.

“We continue to take out depredating wolves. It’s pretty clear that we still have wolves where there’s no tolerance from the livestock community,” he says. And by that he means, a justified intolerance.

Aasheim says he also understands the desire to save the wolves from extinction in the U.S. Montana supports a recovered population and even has a law that says so. What’s more, this is the state that brought back the Grizzly bear to healthy numbers, he says.

Wildlife advocates need to see that there are life-and-death issues on both sides of the fence. He cites a recent two-day rampage in which wolves killed 122 sheep. “We have to reach a balance of what is reasonable depredation on livestock. We know there will be some depredation.”

What about that government reimbursement for losses? Those funds are limited, he says.

Of course Montana’s 72 wolf take, if you’re going to be practical about it, was far less than where Idaho set the bar, at 220.

Idaho has more wolves in total than Montana, in the neighborhood of 900, and declining space for them. While Montana was derided this past season for killing a pack of wolves that lived in Yellowstone (when they roamed off  protected park lands), Idaho has shown a nasty streak with regard to the wolves. Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter seemed to lower the level of discussion there right off when he declared he wanted to be the first one to take a wolf. (He’s more circumspect, but still frustrated in news releases on the topic.)

Now, as the Idaho season comes to a close the end of this month, come rumblings that some people are dissatisfied with the number of wolves taken. Idaho game officials are concerned about dwindling elk populations in certain areas, and told the Idaho Statesman that additional wolves might need to be taken. This news and more can be explored in a Switchboard blog by Sylvia Fallon, a staff scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

By Barbara Kessler
Green Right Now

When Ric Richards recently acquired an aging McDonalds in Cary, N.C., he knew the place needed an overhaul.  The 25-year-old store was fraying at the edges.

Richards decided to give these particular golden arches a green touch.

Once he’d decided that the building needed replacing, the decision to go eco-friendly was not difficult. Richards knew it made sense from a business standpoint – it would cut energy costs dramatically – and he figured it would resonate with the educated customers living in the Research Triangle region, especially those interested in lower-carbon living.

“I felt it was the right thing to do,’’ said the owner-operator whose green restaurant celebrated its grand opening this winter. “We all need to be more geared for sustainability as we move into the future. We need to build buildings or live at home using fewer resources.”

Creating the third green-credentialed restaurant in the nation proved just a little easier in the Raleigh-Durham area, because the leading LED manufacturer Cree Lighting is just down the road.

Cree representatives, Richards and architect Logan Luzadr of LMHT Architects collaborated to light the restaurant’s public spaces completely with LEDs, which use less than 20 percent of the energy consumed by comparable incandescent lighting and only about half the energy used by CFL lights.

Virtually all of the restaurant’s lights are LEDs, making the LEED (for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ) Gold-rated building a showcase of state-of-the art lighting.

Not only are the LEDs more efficient than other types of lighting, they don’t contain any mercury, which has been a downside of CFLs.

“If you didn’t know the lighting in McDonald’s was LED, you probably wouldn’t notice, but that’s the point. The Cree LED lights in the Cary McDonald’s give off the same beautiful light you would expect from an incandescent but consume just a fraction of the energy,” said Cree executive Gary Trott. “This allows the store to layer in accent lighting for a more pleasing environment while still meeting LEED-certification standards.”

Lighting doesn’t just come from a socket, however, and Luzadr’s design assured that day times at the McD’s would be naturally lit. The building was constructed with 360-degrees of windows in a cupola above the eating area with 19 Solatubes – tunnels that carry sky light – spread across the restaurant.

“Aesthetically the restaurant looks terrific,” said Richards, who explained that lighting was a key focus of the rebuild because it does double duty, saving energy and improving the feel of the cafe.

The other aspect of green building that Richards wanted to be sure to get right was the heating and cooling system. His “green team” of Luzadr, operations manager Tony Myers, green site designer Brian Stoltz of Commercial Site Design in Raleigh and green advisor Skanska USA, came up with an enclosed Hydronic Water Boiler System (available in residential versions)  that cuts energy use, in part, by using humidity to keep the restaurant at an even temperature.

The technologically advanced system gives the restaurant a different tactile feel, Richards says.

“I own seven restaurants and I can tell the difference. I just built another one (with the) same style and design, very aesthetic…and it’s energy efficient, but it feels different.’’

Richards estimates his return on the green energy investments will be just five years. Figuring the ROI on the other green changes will not be an easy mathematical formula, but the improved aesthetics and environmentally sensitive changes are tangible but immeasurable rewards.

Among the other features in the LEED-certified builiding:

• All the seating and cabinets and other décor elements were glued together with lower VOC adhesives

• Table tops are made of wheatboard and sunflower seeds (recovered from food processing) or bamboo, a renewable source.

• Countertops are Vetrazzo, which uses recycled concrete and glass.

Speaking of concrete, the concrete from the demolition of the predecessor store was sent out for recycling. The concrete that was installed in the parking lot is recycled stock. While the green team was pondering the heat island effects of being encircled by concrete, an inevitable outcome of being a drive-through restaurant, they added areas for vegetation to curb runoff and mitigate heat effects.

One day someone on the team muttered that they should think about putting in a couple places for electric vehicles to plug-in. Heads snapped. Of course they should. So they did, partnering with NovaCharge in Florida to install two charging stations, which have already been used.

Inside, energy and water savings continue with low-flow faucets and toilets that use 1/10^th of a gallon to flush, a vast savings over even the going green standard of a 1.6 gallon flush.

Topping it all off are placards throughout the restaurant that explain the changes, as well as an electronic presentation of how the building was constructed.

Now, as for that McDonald’s food…it’s being prepared with EnergyStar appliances. But it bears acknowledging that, in all honesty, a big burger is not the poster food for the green movement.

However, a recent  sustainability report by the fast-food giant shows that McDonald’s is well aware of changing tastes, as well as pressures on the food supply. The report noted that 98 percent of the whitefish used in Filet-O-Fish sandwiches came from fisheries with “favorable sustainability ratings” and that healthy sides for Happy Meals are offered in the top McD markets. Those sides include fruit bags, cherry tomatoes, corn cups and “Apple Dippers.” And there are those salads and parfaits. So those who eschew burgers, can at least chew something else.

The report also said that 80 percent of the cooking oil used in McDonald’s in Europe is converted into biodiesel. The EU has a stronger biodiesel network than the U.S. But more and more U.S. restaurants are recycling their cooking oil, including the Cary McDonald’s.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

From Green Right Now Reports

eBay, that giant online garage sale, announced today that it will offer a new green shopping hub.

The hub will help shoppers identify products that are green by virtue of being vintage or used; made of sustainable materials or designed to save energy.

The new shopping hub was formed as a response to eBay’s “Green Team” shoppers who’ve taken a pledge to be green. This online community, which eBay says is about 150,000 strong, has “committed to making greener lifestyle choices.”

Concurrently, eBay is partnering with Team Earth, a coalition of NGOs and private sector companies, to protect rainforests. For the first 250,000 people who pledge to reuse on eBay through its “Green Team Challenge” the company will protect an acre of rainforest in their name.

“We are delighted that eBay continues to demonstrate their strong support for the environment by becoming a member of Team Earth,” said Julie Blackwell, Senior Director of Team Earth at Conservation International. “eBay’s passionate community has changed the way we shop and we have no doubt that they can change the way we consume. They are a perfect partner to rally collective action around some of the most pressing environmental issues of our day.”

To stress its point about reusing consumer goods, eBay worked with Cooler, Inc., which calculates the carbon footprint of goods and activities, to develop some comparisons between recycled or reused items and the carbon cost of their new counterparts.

Cooler Inc. found that:

• Choosing a previously-loved leather handbag saves as much energy as a flight from London to Paris

• Selecting a previously owned watch saves the energy equivalent of 39 days of refrigerator use

• Choosing previously-worn leather shoes saves more energy than an average household uses in a day

For more details on using eBay more greenly, and on supporting the rainforest preservation, see the Green Team webpage.

By Kate Nolan
Green Right Now

If you want to save something, try water. It’s going fast. Depletion of the U.S. water supply isn’t something you can argue about. It’s visible, measurable and predictable. Since 2005, every U.S. region has been short on water, and use increases annually. Even New York City has experienced drought in recent years.

Population growth is one factor in the shortage. But the more sobering issue is that the U.S. water supply itself is in permanent decline.

The country’s breadbasket regions in the Midwest and California are sopping up water faster than rain or snow can replenish it. The Colorado River and its reservoirs, serving seven population-growth states and Mexico, are running dry. Dozens of California municipalities have imposed water rationing, and 500,000 farm acres there lie fallow. A respected study says one Colorado basin boom town — Phoenix, the fifth largest city in the U.S. — has a 50-50 chance of running dry by 2021.

The Ogallala Aquifer (beneath Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming) is running dry with a refill unlikely. The aquifer irrigates most Great Plains agriculture. Switching to low-water crops may be its only hope.

At the same time, the country is switching to “clean” industries, some of which — like manufacturing microchips — use a lot of water. Nuclear power, another “clean” enterprise, could reduce our carbon footprint, but it will require a lot of water.

In view of the great slurp industrial and agricultural users are taking, can mere individuals have any impact on water supplies? Can adopting a green lifestyle put a drop back in the bucket?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says, yes.

“Homes use half the water in the U.S., more than is used by business or industry,” said Stephanie Thornton of the EPA’s WaterSense program. On average, we each use 100 gallons of water a day at home, in addition to the 47 gallons each of us consumes out in the community. Thornton says there is so much waste that relatively small changes could conserve billions of gallons.

“Toilets are by far the biggest water user inside the home, accounting for 30 percent of water used,” she said. “Replacing every old toilet with new low-flow models across the country would save 640 billion gallons annually.”

It’s easy to find the right toilet:  just look for the EPA’s WaterSense label, which identifies high-performing, water-efficient products for use throughout the home. (The agency’s Energy Star label indicates energy efficiency.)

Another thing you can do: eliminate leaks. The EPA estimates U.S. homes leak more than a trillion gallons of water a year. The problem is so crucial the EPA sponsors a national “Fix A Leak Week” each March.

But there’s much more to do. Start small and work up to planning some major household purchases:

Little things you can do

For starters, here are a few simple tips that require nothing but kicking bad habits.

Indoors:

• Meditate without the water feature: Don’t run water while shaving, rinsing dishes, washing hands or brushing teeth.
• Take five-minute showers: turn water off to lather up and on to rinse.
• Collect shower water and flow spewed from faucets while you wait for hot water: reuse it for watering plants indoors and out.
• Keep a container of chilled drinking water in the fridge: avoid running tap water until cool.
• Dispose of food waste in a compost pile or a garbage can: avoid using a high water-volume garbage disposal.

Outdoors:

• Sweep. Use a broom instead of a hose to clean sidewalks, driveways and patios.
• Seal drippy hose connections. Spend ten cents on a washer.
• Reduce evaporation. Water plants in the early morning and use sprinklers that make big drops instead of a mist that evaporates before it hits the ground.
• Water less. Most people water too much. Use mulch to retain moisture, and very little fertilizer—it needs water to work. Windbreaks and fences can slow evaporation by wind.
• Don’t water when it rains. Sounds obvious, but is a strangely overlooked strategy. Build on the idea with rain shut-off devices for irrigated yards.

Bigger things you can do

Low-water upgrades are available in virtually every appliance that uses water. The federal “Cash for Appliance Clunkers 2010″ program can help take the sting out of the cost of upgrading. Under the plan, appliances may qualify for state or local rebates or tax credits. Run by the U.S. Department of Energy, the $300 million rebate program is already under way in some states. Each state has its own approach and details, such as the amount rebated, the variety of appliances and types of incentives.

Aerators or flow restrictors: Retrofit all faucets with these little gems. At $1 or $2 each, they can save 2,700 gallons a year per faucet. By adding air to the water stream, they reduce the flow rate of high volume faucets to .5-2.5 gallons per minute or less. The result is a spray that maintains water pressure. Each aerator’s flow rate is imprinted on its side.

Low-flow toilets: For $100 you can replace old toilets that use four gallons per flush or more with new high-efficiency toilets (HET), rated at 1.6 GPF (gallons per flush) or less, or dual-flush toilets. The flush rate is posted inside the tank. You can get a pressure-assisted toilet, but traditional gravity-flush toilets are adequate in most homes.

Dual-flush toilets have two options, one for a liquid waste flush that uses less than a gallon, and a second one for solid waste that uses 1.6 gallons. This split option can reduce water usage by up to 67 percent, and you don’t have to think about it — an infrared sensor light activates the appropriate flush.

A high-efficiency toilet can save 4,000 gallons of water per person per year.

If you can’t install a low-flow toilet, try to displace some water in your old tank. But avoid the old trick of putting a brick in it – bricks crumble. Instead, fill a plastic gallon bottle with water and submerge it in the toilet tank. It reduces the volume of water used in each flush.

Low-water showerhead: The maximum flow allowed by the EPA is 2.5 GPM (gallons per minute), but many new showerheads use less. Showerheads with the WaterSense label must use no more than 2.0 GPM.

One way to boost efficiency is by aerating, or oxygenating, the spray, an especially useful technology for homes with low water pressure – and one that helps avoid the flattened hair-dos featured in a famous Seinfeld episode involving low-flow showerheads. Here are some choices:

• An Aqua Helix model ($30) aerates the flow with a “spinning cone” technology to maintain a strong spray that consumes less than .5 GPM.
• For $20, the Oxygenics SkinCare aerated showerhead reduced water use to 1.5 GPM. It’s sold online and at major home improvement stores.
• Kohler has begun offering low-flow options, with a selection that includes 1.75 GPM showerheads.
• Moen also has brought low-flow showerheads into its inventory, getting water use down to 1.5 or 1.75 GPM with in a variety of models.

Tankless water heater: Seas of water go down the drain while we wait for hot water to flow to us through the plumbing. Tankless heaters, or

“on-demand” heaters, skip the pipes, heating the water as it is used. Low energy electric and gas tankless heaters range from whole-home units, starting around $1,000, that can support two simultaneous showers to smaller under-the-counter units. One under-the counter unit, the Stiebel Eltron Mini 4 ($150) can be installed in a single bathroom, kitchen or laundry room. Generally, gas-units provide more hot water than electric units.

The units also may lower water-heating energy bills by 20 percent because they don’t heat standing water. But on-demand units aren’t right for every household. Some heaters provide only five heated gallons of water per minute. That’s enough for one or two people, but those who need multiple showers or do laundry and wash dishes at the same time may have problems.

If you don’t go tankless, insulate your pipes and water heater to keep the water in them hot or cold, decreasing the need to run water until it’s the right temperature.

Hot water-recirculating system. Here, hot water recirculates between the faucet and water heater to stay hot, eliminating the wait for hot water. Systems include a hot water line that goes from the heater to the farthest fixture and back to the heater, a pump, thermostat, a timer and some valves. Manufacturers estimate 11,000 to 15,000 gallons can be saved annually for average families by eliminating the wait for hot water. Cost is $1,200-$1,500; rebates may be available for retrofitting existing homes.

Low-water clothes washer. Most washers use about 40 gallons of water per load and can account for 25 percent of indoor household water use, according to the EPA. You can halve that figure with a front-loading washer. Look for the EPA’s WaterSense label when purchasing a new washer. If you do your laundry outside the home, look for a business that uses low-water-use washers.

New front-loading models use very little water by scrubbing the laundry differently—they drop it, during the spin, instead of using an agitator post. Look for a model with a water volume under four cubic feet that uses less than 6.5 gallons water per cubic foot. Some new top-loaders use high-pressure sprayers to agitate and rinse the clothes, cutting down on water use. But they may not clean clothes as effectively as front-loaders, according to Consumer Reports.

Recently, prices have dropped on the new low water-use models, which are also more energy efficient.

Low-water dishwasher. New dishwashers can use less water than washing by hand — if they are operated only when full and if dishes are not rinsed before loading. Hand-rinsing can consume 20 gallons per load. Water-efficient models use on average only four gallons per load, almost 40 percent less than other dishwashers, saving 1,000 gallons of water a year. Look for dishwashers with the Energy Star label. That means it uses 5.6 gallons or less per load. Others use more than eight gallons.

Water treatment cutback: Water softeners consume 15 to 120 gallons for each 1,000 gallons of water used. Reverse osmosis (RO) units waste from two to nine gallons for one RO gallon. If you have water softeners or RO units, turn them off when you go on vacation. Water softeners should only be used when mineral levels in the water are likely to damage pipes. When necessary, use only as much as needed.

Xeriphytic (low-water) plants. The United States Department of Agriculture says low-water plants grow in every region. Hardy examples include succulents and narrow-leafed evergreens, which can do well even in humid climates. For regional recommendations, visit the Natural Resources Conservation Service online.

Harvest rainwater. Kids ask where does the rain go? You can answer that question by harvesting water for use later. Simple systems use gutters, downspouts and contoured yards to direct rain to the garden.

To get the most from a downpour, collect rainwater in a barrel. Some systems can cost a thousand dollars and involve pumps, multiple barrels and hoses networked from gutters to garden. But it can be much simpler: Get a 50-60 gallon rainbarrel and connect it to a gutter spout. Most are closed with a lid or tightly screen at the top. You can  prevent mosquito infiltration by using a biological mosquito control (mosquito “dunks”).

One well-reviewed heavy plastic barrel is the Achla RB-01 Rain Catcher Water Barrel for $100-$160. It holds 54 gallons, has a flat back to fit snuggly against a house and includes a debris screen, watering hose, connections for multiple barrels and its safe design keeps kids and animals from falling in. But there are many other models available; some are even made of recycled plastic or are re-purposed bulk food containers.

Trickle irrigation. Use a trickle or drip irrigation system instead of a sprinkler. Water loss through evaporation is minimal because the water goes directly to the roots. A drip system requires a few valves, a filter, automatic timer, tubing and water emitters. It may sound complicated, but it’s not, nor is it expensive. But it needs occasional maintenance to make sure the emitters aren’t clogged.

Low-water car wash. Patronize a commercial car wash that recycles water used at the site or sends used water to a treatment plant. It can be the most low-water way to wash your vehicle.

The desert-based Arizona Dept. of Water Resources, explains commercial washing, as follows:

• Self service washes use roughly 12 gallons per car. Water lost to evaporation and carryout (what’s left on the car when it leaves) account for 20 percent of water used. Look for facilities that use low-flow spray wand nozzles that shut off when not in use.

• Automatic washes that convey a car through the wash use 44 gallons per wash with17 percent lost to evaporation and carryout.

• Automatic washes that rotate the washing equipment around a stationary vehicle use about 72 gallons per wash — 33 percent from evaporation and carryout.

If you self-wash, try using a waterless car wash, such as Eco Touch ($10 for a  24-oz. bottle that cleans and shines up to six washes).

For a water wash, do it on grass or dirt, which works as a filter and reuses the water as irrigation. A mild soapy solution will not harm the lawn. Use a bucket and a nozzle or water wand with an automatic shut-off.  Nozzles cost $5-$20; wands start at about $10.

Pool sense. Cover pools and spas to reduce evaporation, which can account for thousands of gallons a year. A cover that doubles as a security barrier can cost more than $1,000, but a simple evaporation barrier costs $100-$200.

Of course, water runs through nearly everything we consume. Decreasing the slurp any individual takes means buying goods that are produced responsibly.  Fruit and vegetables grown with pesticides and fertilizers that pollute water and beef raised in water-wasting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) all drive up our personal water consumption levels exponentially.  The best way to control that factor is to know where things originate. Make a habit of asking merchants where things come from.

One last thing you can do: monitor your water use. An easy way to assess it is to pay attention to your water bill. If it spikes unexpectedly, you may have a leak, and you should check for it. The repair may be as simple as replacing a washer. That can save you some water, and some money.

(Kate Nolan writes about the environment and health in Phoenix. She worked formerly as a reporter for The Arizona Republic; managing editor at Phoenix New Times and editor at Playboy.)

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

From Green Right Now Reports

Get your pipe fittings ready, next week is Fix a Leak week, starting March 15.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sponsors the annual five-day blitz to promote repair of leaks and replacing appliances with those that have WaterSense labels, the EPA’s designation for low water use products. Did you even know that some faucets are engineering to use less water without a reduction in flow. That’s how they get the WaterSense label, and you can find qualified models at the WaterSense website.

So look for local events sponsored by the EPA and local governments, plumbers, retailers, manufacturers and organizations. An average American home can waste 10,000 gallons of water a year from running toilets, dripping faucets, and other leaks.

For details see the EPA webpage on Fix a Leak Week.

From Green Right Now Reports

Garbage Dreams is the paradoxical title of an upcoming PBS documentary on Egypt’s Zaballeen, or in English, ‘garbage people’. The Zaballeen collect the trash in Cairo. They are born into the job and live on the city’s outskirts, within the large garbage village composed of Cairo’s waste.

But this is not a tale of squalor and desperation. Long ago, the Zaballeen learned to support themselves by recycling 80 percent of the trash they collect.

“They have created the world’s most effective resource recovery system, using trash to lift themselves out of poverty and a solution to one of the world’s most pressing crises,” according to promotional material for the film.

The film follows three young teen-aged men, Zaballeen friends, who face the upheaval of their world when a corporate takeover of the trash business is considered. Garbage Dreams is part of the Public Broadcasting Service’s “Independent Lens” series. It is set to air on April 27. Check local listings for times.

By Barbara Kessler
Green Right Now

St. Pat’s is coming up. So it’s time to decide, how green do you want to be?

Green and Sober

In this scenario, you remember to carry your reusable water bottle. If your Klean Kanteen were green that would be keen. But any reusable bottle will do.

Green and Tipsy

If you’re looking to imbibe, there’s the traditional green beer, a staple at Irish parades everywhere. You can make it at home with green food dye. It is best showcased in a chilled clear glass mug.

Green as in Apple Green

Of course, there’s your ‘Green Apple Surprise’, made with Midori Green Apple Liquor and tequila or vodka or rum. Midori is happy to oblige with recipes. But these sweeties can really go down easy, so drink responsibly. Make it greener with organic liquors…

Super Green — and also Tipsy

Here’s a drink that could satisfy all your green yearnings on St. Paddy’s: The Kiwi Crush. The recipe is green as can be. Take 2 oz. of Blue Ice Organic Wheat Vodka and add it to a mix of half an organic kiwi and half of an organic lime smushed together with 1 tsp. organic sugar. Make sure the mixture is well “muddled” and juicy. Add crushed ice, shake vigorously and pour into a glass. Drink with straws (so the fruit mush doesn’t end up on your chin).

Thanks to Blue Ice Organic Wheat Vodka for that recipe. Blue Ice Organic Wheat Vodka, introduced in 2009, is made in Rigby, Idaho from organic winter wheat. It’s kosher and USDA certified Organic. We didn’t know.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

From Green Right Now Reports

Looking to rent an apartment? Make sure it has all the amenities you’ll need: laundry facilities, exercise room — and a car for occasional long-range errands.

In San Francisco, they are not leaving that last one to chance. The Planning Department mandates that for every 50 to 200 units in a new residential building, at least one space must be made available for a car sharing vehicle.

The idea is that parking for an apartment complex shouldn’t shut out, but should encourage, those who use car sharing. And if the space has got a car at the ready — all the better.

Zipcar, Inc., the Boston-based car sharing service that claims to be the world’s largest, announced this week that San Francisco has granted it a certification that qualifies the company to fill those designated car-share spots. That means that Zipcar can place its cars at the car share parking spots, giving it a competitive edge over other services.

“As a ‘Certified Car Share Organization,’ Zipcar will help meet the demands of San Francisco developers and residents, who increasingly are requesting car sharing at their buildings,” said Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator of the San Francisco Planning Department.

Eventually, other car companies could get certified, as well, by applying to the city Planning Department.

In the meantime, Zipcar can fulfill the needs of building owners and tenants, as Zipcar President and COO Mark Norman explained in his statement: “Developers can better attract tenants by offering Zipcar as an on-site amenity, and effectively cut costs by reducing the overall number of parking spaces necessary, since fewer residents will own cars.

“Residents can more easily live car-free with the convenience of a Zipcar just steps from their home.  A car-free life will save money, simplify their lives and reduce their environmental footprint.”

Integrating car sharing, biking amenities or locating near mass transit also wins building developers points toward LEED designation by the U.S. Green Building Council.

Zipcar serves many major and smaller city markets in North America.

For more information about car sharing, see carsharing.net.

From Green Right Now Reports

As climate change accelerates, leading investment groups are asking to hear more from corporations about their plans to adapt and survive in a changing world.

U.S. investors – pension funds, labor, religious and other institutional investors – filed a record number of climate change resolutions in 2009.

The 95 shareholder resolutions were filed with 82 U.S. and Canadian companies, some of which face special challenges from climate change, according to a news release by Ceres, a coalition of investors, environmental and social responsibility groups.

The number of resolutions represent a 40 percent increase over 2009 and were likely encouraged by recent guidance from the Securities and Exchange Commission on climate disclosure.

“As the SEC recently affirmed with its disclosure guidance, climate change presents clear material risks and opportunities for U.S. businesses – and investors have a right to know which companies are well prepared and which are not,” said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres, which helps coordinate the shareholder filings.

Companies targeted by the resolutions include oil and gas corporations such as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, as well as the nation’s largest coal companies, electric utilities, homebuilders, “big box” retailers, financial institutions “and other businesses that investors believe are not adequately disclosing and managing potential climate-related business impacts,” according to Ceres.

Investors want to know about the risks companies are taking with certain business practices that could increase a company’s carbon footprint and work against sustainability.

Resolutions, for example, targeted ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips over the companies’ plans to spend billions to extract fossil fuels from Canada oil sands deposits. The  shareholders want more information about the environmental impacts of this controversial practice, which faces legal challenges in both Canada and the U.S. They also asked for the companies’ assessments of potential risks to their reputation over oil sands extraction, a more complex, costly way to extract oil for petroleum.

Other resolutions asked big coal and electric utilities about their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as the U.S. readies for possible regulation of GHGs.

“We want our companies to closely look at the impact climate change legislation and regulation have on them, to realistically assess those risks, and to consider the indirect consequences of climate change-driven regulation and business trends on their activities,” said Jack Ehnes, CEO of CalSTRS, the California teachers’ retirement pension fund, which manages $131 billion dollars in assets.

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, whose office oversees the state’s $129.4 billion pension fund and filed resolutions with CONSOL Energy Inc. and engineering firm KBR, also spoke out on behalf of more transparency.

“Investors cannot remain silent to the threats of global climate change, which has the potential to negatively impact businesses and their long-term profitability. The New York State Common Retirement Fund wants the companies it invests in to more clearly assess and better manage the far-reaching risks of climate change,” DiNapoli said.

(Note: The Cove won the 2010 Oscar for best documentary.)

By Melissa Segrest
Green Right Now

This is an interesting time to be Ric O’Barry.

On one hand, the marine mammal activist is counting down the hours until Sunday, when he may win an Oscar for his role in the documentary The Cove – a compelling and gruesome expose about the secret slaughter of dolphins in Japan.

On the other hand, he is all over the news as the unabashed enemy of whale captivity, the go-to naysayer in the wake of a SeaWorld trainer’s death in the jaws of an orca – a killer whale.

Fighting for the rights of dolphins and whales is nothing new for O’Barry. In a way, he blames himself for starting it all. He was the man who captured and trained the dolphins who performed in the ‘60s TV show Flipper.

He’s been trying to make up for it ever since, fighting to free captive dolphins, including the orcas, which are the largest members of the dolphin family.

“We have a utilitarian relationship with these animals – SeaWorld does,” he said. “The fact is that 90.4 percent of all the orcas captured since 1961 are dead. That’s appalling for an animal that should live 70 years in the wild. We know of 152 orcas that have died in captivity.”

For SeaWorld – and other entertainment aquariums around the world that train dolphins and killer whales to perform – O’Barry is an unceasing, increasingly high-profile irritant, reminding the world that these are highly intelligent creatures are not domesticated.

“These are wild animals, and they are forever wild. Playing lovey-dovey with them is not smart. . . . These (attacks and injuries to trainers) are not accidents. These are incidents and they happen quite often. Then they are covered up,” he said, mentioning another recent, relatively unpublicized death of a trainer at an aquarium in the Canary Islands in December. Reports say he drowned after an accident during “playtime” with an orca.

And most everyone following the news knows that the orca that killed trainer Dawn Brancheau in Orlando last month, Tilikum – the largest killer whale in captivity today –  had killed before.

Why are we so attracted to the spectacle of flipping Shamus and ball-tossing dolphins? SeaWorld spokesman, beloved animal advocate Jack Hanna, says these interactions between the crowd and the dolphins and orcas help sensitize us to their amazing beauty and make us care about their fate.

Despite the death of Brancheau on Feb. 24, the multimillion-dollar business of dolphin and killer whale performances goes on. The big black and white mammals are the headliners at entertainment aquariums around the globe, and that means millions of dollars to the “abusement parks,” as O’Barry calls them.

That quip, along with lots of others, has brought lawsuits, legal threats and nasty letters his way, O’Barry said. None of which seems to have any impact on him.

The “seaquarium” industry is powerful, with lobbyists, lawyers and PR firms working hard to keep their image clean. “They’ve been able to convince people over the years that these animals belong here, doing these stupid tricks. And that’s the problem – we’re brainwashed into thinking they belong here.

“We need to recognize that there’s a space between us and wildlife that we don’t respect. And so, what they (the seaquariums) do is a form of bad education. Yes, it’s educational, but it’s bad. It only serves to perpetuate our insidious utilitarian relationship with nature,” he said.

It’s also all about control, he says. With dolphins’ perpetual smiles and playful antics, it’s hard to think the force driving those behaviors might not be love.

“It is a spectacle of dominance. I think anybody who watches that show – if they are honest with themselves  – would have to admit that.

“And it teaches us that dominance is good. Dominance is right, Dominance works. So everything is upside down and backwards,” O’Barry said.

To counter those comments, SeaWorld’s CEO Jim Atchison and others try to sooth a troubled public in an official statement: “It is important that I again stress that we provide the highest standard of care, and no animal is ever subjected to punishment in any form. Tilikum is no exception.”

Is there a disconnect between our wish to keep these sound-sensitive marine mammals safe and watching them splash around in what O’Barry calls a “concrete box”? There is that, and more: If we need a better example, look no further than Japan, he said.

By Harriet Blake
Green Right Now

In Durham, N.C., homes will get an energy retrofit. In Salt Lake City, they’ll develop a plan to reduce auto pollution.  In Sacramento, they’ll be improving the landscape around a river to reduce pollution runoff. And in Denver, they’ll be looking at a little bit of all that — energy efficiency for homes and businesses, bike sharing and renewable energy.

It’s all being made possible by $10 million from the EPA’s Climate Showcase Community Grants, set up to help communities develop their plans to reduce greenhouse gases and lighten their carbon footprint.

Durham, N.C.

In the city and county of Durham, N.C., the community will use the grant to retrofit homes in selected neighborhoods. Tobin Freid, sustainability manager, says one of the most effective ways to change behavior is to see that everyone else “is doing it.” In other words, if the neighbors are all getting retrofitted, the mentality is “I should do that, too.”

The federal grants will have a double benefit by providing much needed green collar jobs for those employed by the program.

“We are starting with 2,000 square-feet or less homes, all of which are single story and free of un-vented combustion appliances.
The houses in these neighborhoods tend to be similar, three to four styles,” says Freid, and by beginning with simple designs, “it is more efficient to quickly assess [the retrofitting needs].”

Single story homes are easier to retrofit because the duct work is all on one level. The other advantage is that the smaller homes are a good training ground for the retrofitters before embarking on larger projects in the future, Freid said.

The Durham crew is not doing an energy audit on each of these homes, instead, “we are focusing on four retrofits: a programmable thermostat, sealing air ducts, adding insulation and sealing leaks/cracks in floor boards. Most houses need these.”

The homes to be retrofitted will be selected this spring and the work will begin in July. Currently, Freid says, “volunteers are going door to door to educate homeowners on energy savings and tax incentives. We will also have workshops on easy energy fixes such as caulking windows or wrapping hot water pipes.”

The homes chosen will be tracked for energy use, before and two years after, the retrofits. “We realize energy consumption changes depending how many people live in a house. For example when a child is born, energy usage goes up; or when a child goes off to college, energy usage should go down.”

Residents will pay $300 to participate; the grant will provide up to $1,200 per home. Depending on what a family’s income is, they may qualify for the federal weatherization program. In which case, they will be encouraged to do so. A family of four earning $44,000 or below, would qualify.

Salt Lake City

In Salt Lake City, the EPA grant is being used to figure out how to make sustainable transportation a priority — and for good reason.

“Salt Lake City experiences very poor air quality, especially in winter,” says the city’s environmental manager, Renee Zollinger. This is due to an air inversion that sets in and traps pollutants in the valley. Air quality isn’t much better in the summer due to ozone production. “We frequently have the worst air quality in the nation, which is clearly a health concern. About half of the pollution that accumulates during those periods is from vehicle exhaust. These vehicle emissions also include a lot of greenhouse gases. “

To combat the air quality issue, the Salt Lake has initiated several outreach campaigns to reduce community vehicle emissions. Zollinger says that while these have been successful, “we felt that these programs…would benefit by stepping back and taking a holistic approach to identifying our audiences and their respective priorities, and then developing very tailored messaging that brings those groups into the effort.”

That’s where the EPA grant come into play, she says.

“The grant will allow us to collect data from surveys and focus groups to identify the perceptions of different audiences, especially those that have been difficult to reach so far,” Zollinger says.

The problem that Salt Lake City has is not different from many other communities. “We are still a very car-oriented population. The goal of the grant is to create more behavior changes. We have the infrastructure…We need to study the things that will change behavior,” she says.

Salt Lake City has a well-regarded light rail system, as well as heavy rail that runs north and south along the Wasatch Front, a robust bus system, and bike paths, she says. The city is building a bicycle transit center that will be located where the light and heavy rail intersect and will include showers, lockers and a bike repair shop.

If Salt Lake City can identify the triggers that make people change their environmental behavior, Zollinger believes that this data could help other communities with similar demographics.

Denver

In Denver city and county, the EPA grant will fund the Neighborhood Climate Prosperity Project. It is a four-pronged project that will target residential energy efficiency; small business energy concerns (mom-and-pop pizza shops don’t usually consider energy efficiency a top priority); sustainable transportation options such as bike sharing; and renewable energy challenges that include using wind and solar energy through local utility companies.

“We’ve already done some residential energy outreach,” says Matthew Marshall of the city’s Environmental Health Department. “We want to focus on low-income housing” so the project is sending out volunteers to go door to door, giving residents free street trees, CFL porch bulbs and information on recycling. The volunteers also are letting residents know about free programs such as the federal weatherization program. In some cases, they may be eligible for a new refrigerator and/or furnace.

The stimulus package gave Denver a good boost, Marshall says, but the grant money enables the city and county to provide even more services to its residents.

The Department of Environmental Health accomplishes its goals with the help of nonprofits such as Groundwork Denver and the Mile High Youth Corp to get the word out and in some cases, to do the energy retrofits needed. Groundwork Denver organizes the door-to-door effort. The Youth Corp trains young adults in job skills, in this case, green job skills, that enable them to do in-home energy audits that include installing low-flow toilet and faucet fixtures.

Sacramento

In Sacramento, the EPA grant will go to expanding river-friendly landscaping. Jeanette Watson, the lead environmental specialist with the Sacramento County Storm Water Program, and Dave Tamayo, the technical environmental specialist, were  both involved with the

grant application. Sacramento already had a storm water project in the works. It focuses on reducing pollutants in storm water that come from landscaping. The project takes a holistic approach by coordinating with the different aspects of water pollution: solid waste, water conservation and air quality.

“The EPA grant will demonstrate the benefits of river-friendly landscaping,” says Watson. It will  focus on greenhouse gas reduction in terms of water conservation and better management of green waste, says Tamayo, noting that, “Water takes energy to deal with. If you save water, you save energy.”

By designing river-friendly landscaping, homeowners and businesses can control green waste, he says. For example, by reducing the turf area of a lawn and using plants that don’t require a lot of trimming, a resident can create a more energy efficient landscape. Gardening without the use of a lot of machinery is preferable. Shipping out yard waste – such as grass cuttings in the summer or leaves in the fall – requires energy. It also takes energy to process and then more energy to sell it back as compost or mulch.

“Leaving grass cuttings on the lawn, benefits the soil; and instead of raking and removing leaves, leave them on site and use as mulch for shrubs and trees. The leaves will also crowd out the weeds, retain water and reduce soil erosion,” he says.

“We realize, especially in Sacramento, the city of trees, that all leaves can’t be left on site. But if we can just establish practices. Whatever you can do, will make a significant improvement.

“Looking at the right design and maintenance practices, such as using the right plant in the right place,” makes a difference, he says.

Roger Dickinson, a Sacramento county supervisor, has been involved with lobbying for the creation of the Climate Showcase Community Grant from the start. Bringing more resources to the local level is key, he says. This is where actions need to be taken.

“Think globally, act locally” is his motto. “We’re very excited about this,” he says. “Climate change is the quintessential issue. Hopefully, [these grants] will be very smart for the environment.” Using basic landscaping and gardening techniques to reduce waste make sense, he says. “Our approach is to demonstrate techniques that work in reducing greenhouse gases and use this as a foundation for others who are building in the future.”

Congresswoman Doris Matsui (D-Sacremento) is very pleased with the EPA grant. “This federal funding will support our efforts to continue reducing our community’s greenhouse gas emissions and thus serve a broader purpose in helping to preserve our local natural resources, improve the community’s health, and bolster our regional economy,” she says.

Cincinnati

The city of Cincinnati also will be augmenting an existing program, started in 2008 and called the Green Cincinnati Plan (GCP). Larry Falkin, director of the city’s Office of Environmental Quality, describes it as a road map to making the city more sustainable. The EPA grant will help fund the outreach and education elements of GCP, he says. “The grant will help us with the leg work to communicate the plan and help motivate participation.”

The GCP offers many recommendations to reduce the city’s greenhouse gas emissions and improve the environment and human health — and save residents money.

“We need to rely more on renewal energy, reduce the number of miles we drive, be conscious of land use such as living closer to our destinations, focus on reducing the landfill and look at our dietary choices and how they impact greenhouse gases,” Falkin says.

Like many of EPA communities, the GCP relies on voluntary measures to achieve its objectives, and counts on participants to act both altruistically and pragmatically.

The EPA created the competitive grant program in 2009 to help communities establish and execute climate change goals. The agency’s hope is that the grants will inspire others to replicate these models and find cost-effective methods to curb greenhouse gases. The first round of grants ($10 million) went to 20 communities, with five more communities to come, pending final review. An additional $10 million in funding will become available later this spring.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

From Green Right Now Reports

Blame lawns. And Big Ag. A new study looking at the effects of the common pesticide atrazine has found that it emasculated three-quarters of the male frogs exposed to the chemical.

It turned one in ten of the male frogs into females.

The study suggests that a key reason for the vast worldwide decline of frogs could be their exposure to atrazine and similar pesticides. “The 75 percent that are chemically castrated are essentially ‘dead’ because of their inability to reproduce in the wild,” says Dr. Tyrone B. Hayes, a University of California-Berkeley professor and lead researcher of the study.

“These male frogs are missing testosterone and all the things that testosterone controls, including sperm….” Hayes says in a UC Berkeley news report.

The peer-reviewed study, published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was released Monday.

Hayes’ earlier work with frogs and atrazine had shown that the chemical disrupted the development of both male and female frogs, creating hermaphrodites that had features of both sexes.

The new study of 40 African clawed frogs, which were housed in water contaminated with atrazine, shows that the hormonal imbalance can be even more extreme.

The frogs were exposed to a level of the chemical (2.5 parts per billion) below the level deemed safe by the EPA (3.0 ppb).

Syngenta AG, the large manufacturer of atrazine,  responded by calling Hayes’ work, past and present, flawed.

“For 50 years, atrazine has been used safely in agriculture with no effect to amphibians, fish, birds and other wildlife at concentrations found in the environment,’’ the company said in a statement. Syngenta maintains that independent research in labs has shown “no association between atrazine and declines in frog numbers.”

The European Union banned atrazine in 2004 over health concerns. The EPA is reviewing its use in the United States, and some states are suing over the use of the chemical, which leaches into groundwater and has been found above safe levels in drinking water supplies.

The Center for Biological Diversity has called for a U.S. ban on atrazine.

“It’s time to ban atrazine to protect our drinking water and our most imperiled wildlife,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, in August, 2009. “There is no reason to continue use of this poisonous contaminant given the building evidence of harm to humans and endangered species.”

The chemical is used on corn and soybeans in the United States to control weeds and increase crop yields. Its tendency to contaminate streams and ground water caused the EPA to set a maximum level (3 parts per billion, ppb) for its presence in water. Water departments are required to test for atrazine at regular intervals and take action if levels rise above that.

The EPA reports that short-term exposure to atrazine can cause heart, lung and kidney problems; longterm exposure can cause cancer and other health effects.

Atrazine was the second most common pesticide found in well water by EPA researchers. It can break down in water and soil, but sunlight does not “reduce its presence,” according to the federal agency. (See the EPA fact sheet.)

Contamination is the Midwest is high, because of the proximity to agricultural use. Studies of atrazine and frogs in the Midwest have found eggs in the testes of native leopard frogs taken from atrazine-contaminated streams.

However, the chemical has been shown to travel hundreds of miles, with the EPA detecting unsafe levels in wells in New York and Delaware, as well as Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and Nebraska.

Atrazine also is found in many common products for home weed control. The EPA has put out a list of trade names of products that contain atrazine.

Other studies show that atrazine also acts as an endocrine disruptor in fish, birds, reptiles, laboratory rats and in human cells. Recent studies hint that is could produce human birth defects, according to the UC Berkeley news report.

Syngenta and others advocating conventional chemical farming argue that strong weed killers are needed to produce high crop yields and make U.S. farms more productive.

Recent research on soils and organic production has been challenging those assumptions. Studies on soil conditions in the US have found that the use of synthetic fertilizers and herbicides is depleting soils. Organic organizations, like the Organic Consumers Association, maintain that small, organic farms can produce enough to feed the world, without degrading soil or groundwater.

For more information on the dwindling world populations of frogs, see our previous story.

By Barbara Kessler
Green Right Now

We are often hardest on those we like. It’s because our disappointment is somehow greater when we’ve been conditioned to expect better.

Like when your once cuddly child becomes a teenager. Or your beloved hairdresser turns your hair green.  Cognitive dissonance sets in, followed by betrayal, followed by disappointment (and in the case of the green hair, mortification.)

And so it was last year when I went to Lowe’s for my usual spring garden supplies — a humble gallon of vinegar weed treatment, several bags of organic mulch, some greensand etc. I count on Lowe’s to have these things. This time, though, I also was looking for a second rain barrel.

I looked and looked. Then, I asked. The manager glanced around, but in that half-hearted way that showed me he knew there wasn’t anything to be found.

That’s right. No rain barrels. At Lowe’s. And not even much sympathy from the manager, who sort of studied the rakes and hoes, waiting for me to move on.

This was jolting, because I usually get pretty good  treatment at Lowe’s, even if it is an impersonal Big Box store. The people who work there are clearly trained to be friendly and most of them are local folks.  The employees make the store. A woman in appliances recently knocked me over with her encyclopedic knowledge of energy efficient washers. I took her name, because when I buy one, I want to be sure it’s from her.

But then, when you’re not patronizing your local garden nursery — and we do try to do that too — you’re likely looking at a mega store because it’s got selection. So long story short, today I got to vent to Lowe’s spokesman Steve Salazar. I grabbed Salazar by the email and asked, ‘Youse guys selling rain barrels or what?’

He stood his ground. Turns out, Lowe’s has got rain barrels. Perhaps they’ve had them online for awhile, but some should be creeping into stores as well, if I read Salazar correctly, and if your local store considers it a priority, which they should given the benefits of free, rainwater irrigation.

Here are Lowe’s two rain barrel models:

Both models are a little on the petite side, for my taste, but they would show well in a garden setting and won’t offend neighbors if they’re visible.

Lowe’s is making other strides — they are now addressing the other gripe I had with them, the absence of light bulb recycling. That’s now in place, says Salazar, whom I called because Lowe’s has won a top ENERGY STAR award. (Home Depot may have pushed the envelope on the light bulbs, having started accepting CFLs, which contain a small amount of mercury, for recycling last year). Salazar was quick to mention that Lowe’s has a long history of collecting batteries, helping to keep them from leaching toxics into landfills.

Salazar also noted that Lowe’s carries more natural and organic gardening items than any other national retailer. Two new products that he mentioned: Hot Shot Natural insect killer, which uses lemongrass oil extracts, a natural insecticide; and a new line by Bayer Advanced, called Bayer Advanced Natria.

That was encouraging news. Even though Bayer’s been associated with some nasty pesticides, if they’re trying to provide a green alternative, more power to them. (Though I am compelled to note here that some organic gardeners don’t much believe in killing the bad pests so much as letting the predators and beneficials have at it, as nature intended.)

But back to my original point, it can be tough shopping for greener alternatives. The marketplace is very much in flux right now, fraught with stumbling blocks for those seeking eco-friendly products. (And we don’t even have time to discuss how green products are still frequently pricing themselves out of contention.)

Let’s just leave it at this. We consumers have to show a little chutzpah — ask for what we need, shop around, shop locally, but also shop where retailers are willing to supply what we need. We have only our dollars with which to “vote”.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network