The world is running out of oil faster than the “official” report from the International Energy Agency suggests, according to an exclusive news report in the UK’s Guardian.

Whistleblowers, one inside the agency and one who has left the agency, say that the IEA has been downplaying the coming shortage of oil for fear of triggering a panic.

Further, the whistleblower still employed by the IEA (described as a “senior official” who wished to remain anonymous), says that the agency’s reluctance to come clean about oil supplies has been the result of pressure from the United States.

These allegations raise questions about the IEA’s prediction that oil production could be raised from its current level of 83 million barrels a day to 105 million barrels a day to meet increasing demand expected as the world comes out of the recession.

Looked at another way, the leaks from inside the IEA, which released its 2009 World Energy Outlook this week, give credence to critics who have been saying the world is close to or past the point of “peak” oil production.

The Guardian quoted the insider source as saying:

“Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources,” he added.

Said the Guardians’ second source:

“We have [already] entered the ‘peak oil’ zone. I think that the situation is really bad.”

The IEA report is not stripped of bad news, however. A look at the Executive Summary shows the IEA projects that:

• Oil demand will grow from 85 million barrels a day in 2008 to 105 million barrels per day in 2030 with the transportation sector accounting for 97 percent of the increase in oil use.
• Falling investment in oil and gas energy will have “far-reaching and depending on how governments respond, potentially serious consequences for energy security, climate change and energy poverty. …Any prolonged downturn in investment threatens to constrain capacity growth in the medium term, particularly for long lead-time projects, eventually risking a shortfall in supply.”

The IEA report further warns that it is important that world leaders develop a treaty at Copenhagen to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (though it talks in terms of holding the planet to 450 ppm of carbon in the atmosphere  instead of the emerging consensus for 350 ppm).

“Energy needs to be used more efficiently and the carbon content of the energy we consume must be reduced…” yet in 2030, the report predicts, fossil fuels, with the exception of coal, will remain the dominant energy sources.

For a larger discussion on peak oil, a look at the bell curves and some postulations about life on planet Earth in the post-fossil fuel era see Matt Savinar’s blog Life After the Oil Crash.

Before the recession put a stranglehold on most every investment, clean technology was hot. Nearly 80 percent of all the venture capital spent in 2008 went to clean, green investments. The industries slumped for much of 2009, but now investors are returning to clean industries.

Regular Americans are curious about these clean tech companies, too, and they’re asking their financial advisers about them, according to one survey.

What is clean tech? It refers to technologies made without generating significant pollution, which produce products that can replace non-renewable energy sources, like oil, and make us more energy-efficient. Think solar cells and wind-generated power, hybrid or electric cars, green buildings, desalinated water and a “smart grid” that will help businesses and home owners to connect with new sources of power, like wind farms and giant desert photovoltaic installations

To give it an extra push, the government’s stimulus package has set aside about  $100 billion for clean, green products and industries. With that boost, venture capital is starting to flow again.

Considering clean-tech investing? We asked some of the best minds in the business to offer tips, advice and bits of wisdom:

Dallas Kachan Cleantech Group

What parts of clean tech are rebounding?

“The earliest sectors to rebound are tied to energy-efficiency and smart grids. The technologies are well understood and simple, quick and easy to deploy. Energy efficiency technologies are the low-hanging fruit,” said Dallas Kachan, managing director of Cleantech Group.  “By becoming more efficient we negate the need for more (energy) generation. . . there is a broad realization that over the last year you get high returns to pursue energy efficiency.”

Kachan’s company is among the most widely read sources of trade news, daily business and developments in the clean technology arena.

So far, solar deals and biofuels have gotten the lion’s share of clean tech investments. Some predict now that energy-efficient technologies will be the next hot commodities.

Are these industries solid?

“These technologies are ready for prime time. They weren’t ready 30 years ago. The timing wasn’t right in the ‘70s. They are no longer considered “alternative” technologies,” said Ron Pernick, co-founder of Clean Edge, a major market research and publishing firm focused on clean technologies since 2000. Clean Edge guides companies, investors and even governments with information about “trends, opportunities and challenges.”

“Globally, biofuels, wind and solar were a $116 billion industry last year,” Pernick said. The predictions for those three sectors? “They will be more than $300 billion in a decade.”

Now, big businesses are stepping into the clean-tech arena, Pernick said. Reports say that General Electric has sunk billions of dollars into wind power, and Applied Materials has put money into solar power.  Xerox, Kimberly-Clark and Walmart  are all putting substantial money into clean tech.

How quickly will these clean tech businesses grow?

Michael Kanellos Greentech Media

“Don’t expect a quick payoff,” said Michael Kanellos, editor-in-chief of Greentech Media, a leading online-media company. He suggested lowering your sky-high expectations. “Software companies can take off like a rocket because consumers can download applications for free and good ones travel by word of mouth. Twitter went from a few users to millions.

“But most green-tech applications – like energy-efficient appliances or solar panels – have to be manufactured. That costs money, which slows adoption,” he said.

In other words, “If Google had to go on your roof, install a bunch of glass plates and charge you $20,000 before you even started searching, you’d switch to Yahoo,” Kanellos said.

What about green mutual funds?

There may be safety in numbers, and clean/green mutual funds could provide extra comfort for mom-and-pop investors. Morningstar provides its members with research and analysis of the market, including tracking of 23 actively managed (and 15 exchange-traded) funds that are considered “green.”

“Somebody who wants to invest in green mutual funds should be aware of the various types of funds out there that are marketed as ‘green,’ said David Kathman, a Chicago-based analyst of mutual funds for Morningstar. A fund that consists of many start-ups is a riskier bet than one with a broader mix.

“Another group is ‘best of breed’ green funds, he said. “These look much more like regular core mutual funds in that they typically own well-known stocks, but within each sector they look for stocks with the best green profiles and environmental records,” Kathman said.

If you’re thinking about a mutual fund, study the prospectus for their “green” criteria or sustainability goals and the areas of green industry where they focus.

Like any other investment, looking for solid cash flows, stimulus money and diversified portfolios are important. A solid track record is as important with “clean” mutual funds as it is with any other fund.

Don’t just think American. Think globally

“Clean tech is not just an American phenomenon. There are very important deals and commercialization in . . . China and the Middle East,” said Clean Tech’s Kachan.

The clean-tech field also is making strong headway in South Korea, Japan, the European Union and India. “Governments around the world . . . are looking to create jobs, be energy-independent, meet stringent requirements for carbon and other emissions, said Clean Edge’s Pernick. “Governments are taking this seriously.”

In the third quarter of this year, Europe received much more clean-tech financing than America.

China is the world’s third largest economy, and they are aggressively looking for cleaner, more efficient energy. One report points out that China has doubled its ability to use wind-generated power over the past four years.

Opponents of climate change action say we can’t afford to spend the billions it will take to retool our economy around new energy sources.

But a group of economists says we can’t afford not to.

The network of  economists, called Economics for Equity and the Environment Network (E3), says that lowering carbon emissions to 350 parts per million (from the current 400 parts per million) is not just desirable — it is affordable.

“The warnings about climate change are growing steadily more ominous — but it has not, as a consequence, become impossibly expensive to save the planet. We can still afford a sustainable future,” they note in a new report The Economics of 350: The Benefits and Costs of Climate Stabilization.

Economic activity aimed at reaching the 350 ppm benchmark, would sustain the economy by creating clean energy jobs, fostering innovation and protecting businesses and individuals from the damaging effects of a hotter climate, according to the  report.

The October paper, co-authored by economics researchers across the US, echoes a point made by environmentalists for years, that shifting to new methods now will avert greater costs later.

The E3 economists see it this way:

• It might cost 1 to 3 percent of the world gross domestic product to reach 350 ppm – considered to be a healthy and safe level of carbon dioxide — but the cost of failing to stabilize the earth’s climate over the next 200 years would be much higher.

• Even if the cost to correct the atmosphere fell at the higher end, at 2.5 of GDP, the net effect to household incomes would be barely noticeable.  “Average incomes would take 29 years to double from today’s level, compared to 28 years in the absence of climate costs.”

Efforts to protect the earth, such as reforestation, replacing fossil fuels with clean energy and developing carbon sequestration, would be an insurance policy against drastic and costly climate changes, they say.

“The reason people buy fire insurance is not because they are certain that their house will burn down; rather, it is because they cannot be certain that it won’t,” said Dr. Frank Ackerman of Tufts University and Stockholm Environment Institute, the lead author of the report, in a statement.

“A carbon target of 350 parts per million buys us insurance against catastrophic climate change.”

The E3 report further argues that half-way measures would not be helpful, because failing to firmly reset the economy on a lower carbon path would lead to higher costs:

“We cannot afford a little climate policy, half-measures that would leave us all vulnerable to the immense risks of an increasingly destructive climate. We need a big initiative, a comprehensive global deal on protecting the earth’s climate by rapidly reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Because the status quo is not sustainable, the most economical choice is to change, as quickly, cost-effectively, and comprehensively as possible.”

The E3 network was formed to help organize information about new economic models that take into account human health and the environment. The network of about 200 economics academics reports that it was formed “to combat misleading junk economics popularized by climate skeptics.”

The report was assembled by Dr. Ackerman and seven other economists from Tufts, the University of California at Santa Barbara, UC at Berkeley, Bard College Dartmouth and Johns Hopkins. (However, the economists’ views do not necessarily represent those of their university.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Leading organizations from the world’s dairy industry say they will sign a Global Dairy Agenda for Action during the World Dairy Summit Sept. 24 in Berlin, Germany. The Global Dairy Agenda for Action is an industry pledge to reduce carbon emissions as part of its contribution to help address global warming. It will be signed by seven organizations on behalf of the world’s dairy associations and companies.

The declaration also will seek the support of policy makers to provide a supportive regulatory environment that recognizes the important economic, social and environmental contributions of the dairy industry.

“This Agenda for Action represents an unprecedented level of cooperation across national borders and along the dairy supply chain. The global dairy community and its partners have pooled resources, knowledge and projects to achieve a more sustainable future,” Povl Krogsgaard, deputy managing director of Arla Foods, said in a statement.

The declaration is being signed by Eastern and Southern African Dairy Association (ESADA); European Dairy Association (EDA); Pan-American Dairy Federation (FEPALE); Global Dairy Platform (GDP); International Dairy Federation (IDF); International Federation of Agriculture Producers (IFAP); Sustainable Agricultural Initiative Platform (SAI Platform).

Dairy Industry participants have already begun action in areas like emissions reduction, energy efficiency, transportation efficiency, reduction in loss of milk and milk products, resource efficiency and life cycle analysis and management. These individual activities are not specifically defined in the declaration, but they continue to be major initiatives for the dairy industry throughout the world.

The Global Dairy Agenda for Action will include a five point commit that includes the development of a standard method for assessing the carbon footprint of milk and dairy products. It also looks to promote adoption of best practices among dairy farms and establish tools to facilitate the measurement and monitoring of emissions on farms and in dairy manufacturing.

The effort also is intended to educate farmers about agricultural emissions and their opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as how to share information and develop cost effective mitigation technologies.

Palm Oil, an ingredient found in most processed food, has been the subject of much environmental debate in recent years over its role in deforestation. It is commonly found in cooking oil and as an ingredient in cosmetics, soaps, detergents, and some plastics. Palm oil also has been considered for use in the production of biodiesel.

There have been many attempts to make palm oil sustainable. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was even established in 2003 to do just that. Unfortunately, six years later, there is still no system that can effectively trace palm oil beyond the processor to the plantation level. Companies that manufacture products using palm oil have little way of knowing where the controversial substance originated — which leaves the question of whether and to what degree palm oil is sustainably farmed up in the air.

This week, a press campaign run by the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC) and aimed at putting the best spin on the industry ran aground when Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned a magazine ad by the Malaysian boosters.

The headline of the MPOC’s magazine advertisement read: “Palm Oil: The Green Answer.”

As if that were not misleading enough, the ad made many more claims, such as:

• “Palm oil is the only product able to sustainably and efficiently meet a large portion of the world’s increasing demand for oil crop-based consumer goods, foodstuffs and biofuel … Malaysia’s forest cover is certain to be maintained.”
• “With the increased attention paid to oil crops, and oil palm in particular, a number of criticisms have been leveled at Malaysia’s palm oil industry, from accusations of rampant deforestation and unsound environmental practices to unfair treatment of farmers and indigenous people. These allegations – protectionist agendas hidden under a thin veneer of environmental concern – are based neither on scientific evidence, nor, for that matter, on fact.”
• “In addition to its green credentials, Malaysia’s palm oil industry also plays an important role in the industrialization of the country and the alleviation of poverty, especially amongst rural populations.”

The advertisement violated substantiation, truthfulness, and the environmental claims sections of the Advertising Standards Authority’s Code, according to the group’s assessment.

“Although we acknowledged that some Malaysian palm oil companies had sought certification from the RSPO [the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil], we understood that the scheme and the certification of biofuels in general was still the subject of debate,” stated the Advertising Standards Authority’s Assessment.

They report explained that “palm oil had played a role in the development of the Malaysian economy in its shift from reliance on rubber and tin mining” and it acknowledged MPOCs assertion that this created one million jobs.

But it also noted that environmental and human rights groups had legitimate complaints about palm oil producers. Friends of the Earth, for instance, contends that palm oil production creates adverse social impacts by displacing indigenous communities affected by deforestation.

Issues over housing and land rights and low wages and poor treatment of workers “compromised MPOCs claim that palm oil had a societal benefit,” the advertisers assessment stated.

The advertising regulators concluded that the magazine ad must no longer appear in its current form.

There is no such thing as sustainable palm oil, at least not yet, according to the ASA.

Malaysian leader presses palm oil’s virtues

The MPOC fired back on Wednesday, complaining that the ASA was relying on FOE’s biased environmental conclusions and arguing that palm oil, being the cheapest vegetable oil, should be available to consumers, especially the poor.

“Today, the ASA ruled that an advertorial in The Economist highlighting the economic importance and environmental sustainability of Malaysian Palm Oil should not appear in any other UK media outlets. The ruling followed a complaint by Friends of the Earth about the advertorial. By censoring our message, this relatively small group of people is blocking the entire British public’s access to a diverse range of views and information about Palm Oil,” wrote the Malaysian group’s CEO Tan Sri Datuk Dr. Yusof Basiron.

“Consumers have a right to have information about the various products and services available to them and a right to determine for themselves which they want. Consequently, we are deeply concerned that the ASA is acting as an interested party in the public debate on palm oil rather than as a neutral and objective arbiter.”

Greenpeace’s report “Slaughtering the Amazon” notes that Brazil’s thriving and expanding cattle trade, which has made it the world’s largest exporter of beef and the top producer (along with China) of leather, has out-sized environmental consequences.

“The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is responsible for 14% of the world’s annual deforestation. This makes it the world’s largest driver of deforestation, responsible for more forest loss than the total deforestation in any country outside Brazil except Indonesia,” according to the report, the result of a three-year investigation by Greenpeace International.

The report’s findings suggest dire consequences for the planet if illegal deforestation associated with the beef and leather industries is not stopped because the Amazon rainforests absorb and hold huge quantities of carbon pollution.

“The Amazon is estimated to store 80-120 billion tonnes of carbon. If destroyed, some fifty times the annual GHG emissions of the USA could be emitted,” according to the report, which relied on government and research institute statistics.

“Slaughtering the Amazon” details how the cattle industry is growing in Brazil, fueled by favorable laws that encourage rapid growth and global companies such as Bertin, JBS and Marfrig that profess neutrality, but actually source from ranches that have moved into rainforest areas, according to the Greenpeace report, released in June.

“Greenpeace has identified hundreds of ranches within the Amazon rainforest supplying cattle to slaughterhouses in the Amazon region belonging to these companies. Where Greenpeace was able to obtain mapped boundaries for ranches, satellite analysis reveals that significant supplies of cattle come from ranches active in recent and illegal deforestation.”

Greenpeace investigators go on to explain that these goods travel into the food chain, unbeknown to consumers and often unchecked by Blue Chip companies worldwide. The products effectively vanish into the global market, becoming meat in packaged meals, leather upholstery in cars and fine Italian shoes.

Greenpeace supports many possible solutions including:

• More responsibility on the part of consumer companies in how they source and verify raw goods.
• Stronger world support for the Amazon Fund set up in Brazil  to help stop deforestation by providing alternative financial support to landowners and people living in the tropical regions — an idea that’s been roundly praised but thinly funded, mainly by Norway and Germany, according to Greenpeace.
• Leading industrialized countries must cut their carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels) to avoid a “tipping point” in which climate change careens forward unchecked. Greenpeace (among many other groups) wants world leaders to agree to this level of commitment at the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December.
• A world commitment to zero deforestation by 2015 in the Amazon, the Congo Basin, and the Paradise forests of Southeast Asia, because these forests help slow global warming and also because they are home to indigenous peoples.

Kraft Foods, the world’s second largest food company, announced today that it has exceeded its goals for reducing water consumption.

Since 2005, the company has achieved a 21 percent reduction in water use in its manufacturing, saving more than 3 billion gallons, according to a press release from the Illinois-based company.

“We’re changing behavior and getting results,” said Steve Yucknut, Vice President of Sustainability, in the statement, which noted that water conservation is vital to survival in a world where millions struggle with water scarcity.
“Around the world, thousands of our employees are working on projects that help us reduce our environmental impact. We focus on manufacturing, since that’s where we use the most water for internal operations. And we pay particular attention to water-scarce areas, where the need is greatest,” Yucknut said.
Kraft highlighted these projects:

• A plant in Port Melbourne, Australia has reduced its use of potable water by nearly 40 percent. The plant is now exploring ways to reuse waste water by partnering with a road construction group to reuse water for road compaction and dust suppression.

• In Bahrain, a Kraft cheese and beverage plant reduced water use by 33 percent by using alternative options to enhance the effectiveness of cleaning without compromising product quality.

• In Jacksonville, Fla., a coffee plant installed a closed-loop system to reuse water to cool coffee grinding equipment instead of using city water, helping it reduce water use by more than 35 percent (saving nearly 20 million gallons a year).

• In Atlanta, the Atlanta Bakery reduced water use by 33 percent by improving cleaning procedures to begin cleaning before using water, and by repairing leaks at the facility.

• In Champaign, Ill., a grocery operation reduced water use by nearly 20 percent through conservation, fixed leaks and using evaporating equipment to reuse well water instead of the town’s water.

At its company headquarters in Northfield, Ill., the company is using three lakes on the corporate campus to capture rainwater that supplies about half of the property’s irrigation needs. The building is cooled by ice from recycled water that is frozen at night, creating cool air that is pushed through a cooling system for offices.

Kraft, which employs about 100,000 people, is known for Kraft cheeses, dinners and dressings, Maxwell House coffees and Oscar Mayer meats. It makes Oreos, LU biscuits, Philadelphia cream cheeses, Jacobs and Carte Noire coffees, Tang, Milka, Cote d’Or, Lacta and Toblerone chocolates.

Kimberly-Clark, the world’s largest personal paper products company, announced new policies today in which the paper maker will greatly increase the use of recycled and sustainably grown wood fibers in its products, which include the Kleenex, Scott and Cottonelle brands.

The move will help save forests around the globe and make the Dallas-based company a leader in producing sustainable paper products, said Greenpeace media officer Daniel Kessler. “We worked with Kimberly-Clark on this policy and it’s a landmark for forest protection; 100 percent of Kimberly-Clark’s fiber will come from sustainable sources.”

For five years, Greenpeace had pressured Kimberly-Clark to become more environmentally sensitive about the raw material used for its paper products. Greenpeace’s “Kleercut” campaign protested Kimberly-Clark’s use of virgin wood fiber in Kleenex tissues, organizing blockades and demonstrations and arguing that the company’s use of trees from Canada’s Boreal Forest and other virgin sources was contributing to world-wide deforestation.

The new fiber-sourcing policies announced Wednesday bring the long-running Kleercut campaign to an end and make public Kimberly-Clark’s plans for more sustainable business practices.

Over the next three years, Kimberly-Clark will dramatically adjust its sourcing for disposable paper products, aiming to ultimately get all of its fiber from sustainable sources. By the end 2011, the global paper product maker has promised that 40 percent of its North American tissue fiber – representing an estimated 600,000 tons – will be either recycled or certified as sustainably grown by the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC). That represents an increase of more than 70 percent over 2007 levels.

“We are committed to using environmentally responsible wood fiber and today’s announcement enhances our industry-leading practices in this area,” said Suhas Apte, Kimberly-Clark Vice President of Environment, Energy, Safety, Quality and Sustainability, in a news release.

“It is our belief that certified primary wood fiber and recycled fiber can both be used in an environmentally responsible way and can provide the product performance that customers and consumers expect from our well-known tissue brands. We commend Greenpeace for helping us develop more sustainable standards.”

Paper companies, including Kimberly-Clark, have long argued that consumers prize softness in tissues and toilet paper, which the companies used to justify their use of virgin wood fibers for disposable personal care products.

But consumer tastes and desires are changing, and the focus on softness may be lessening as people become more aware of environmental degradation associated with common household products.

“Consumers vote with their dollars. We know that as consumers become increasingly concerned with supporting environmentally friendly products, they increase pressure on companies to do the right thing,” Kessler said, noting that an estimated 20 percent of global greenhouse gases come from deforestation.

The temperate Boreal Forest, like the tropical rainforests in the Southern Hemisphere, is a huge carbon sink, holding in the ground carbon that adds to the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels when released. Environmentalists from Greenpeace to Prince Charles of Great Britain are passionately trying to save the forests to mitigate global warming.

Under the new agreement, Kimberly-Clark will not purchase of any fiber from the Canadian Boreal Forest that is not FSC certified by 2011, helping preserve the forest as well as endangered animals that depend upon it.

“Today, ancient forests like the Boreal Forest have won,” said Richard Brooks, Greenpeace Canada Forest Campaign Coordinator in the news release. “This new relationship between Kimberly-Clark and Greenpeace will promote forest conservation, responsible forest management, and recycled fiber as far and wide as possible.”

Dallas-based Kimberly-Clark employs 53,000 people around the world, and posted sales of $19.4 billion in 2008, according to company statements. It makes products under the Kleenex, Scott, Huggies, Pull-Ups, Kotex and Depends brands.

Greenpeace has posted a web page where consumers can thank Kimberly-Clark for this move toward more sustainable practices.

Kimberly-Clark also has other sustainability initiatives.

(Image credit: Greenpeace.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

One degree Fahrenheit.

On average, that’s how much the Earth’s temperature has increased over the past century, according to a report by the EPA. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that during the 21st century the global temperature will increase by 2-6° C.

To the average person, one degree might not seem like a problem. But to scientists studying the climate, it is cause for concern. At this rate of warming, climate changes would occur faster than any of the climate changes over the past 10,000 years.

The warming of a few degrees would lead to more frequent droughts and heat waves; it can also cause an increase in rainfall and change the strength of storms. While some areas of land might benefit from the increased rainfall, others will be devastated by lack of rain.

Lately, some scientists have revised their projections on when global warming will spell the end of the Arctic ice cap. Now, some feel that the ice could be gone within five years, which could trigger a “tipping point” with the oceans warming and rising, and the Earth’s ability to reflect sunlight greatly impaired. In a recent Newsweek interview, Department of Energy Secretary Stephen Chu defined “tipping point” as the point where “no matter what humans do, it’s out of our control.”

Some scientists suggest that the rise in ocean temperatures has led to the increased intensity of hurricanes. There is no way to definitively prove that this is directly related to the rise in global temperatures. However, in 2005 the Science journal released a study regarding hurricane strength and the connection to global warming. The study showed as the storms were becoming more intense, the global temperature was also increasing. The study is quick to point out that Hurricane Katrina and other damaging hurricanes can not be blamed on global warming. However, there appears to be a connection emerging.

]]> http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/04/22/no-math-needed-a-look-at-global-warming-by-the-numbers/feed/ 0 http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/04/21/getting-tipsy-on-green-tips-for-earth-day/ http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/04/21/getting-tipsy-on-green-tips-for-earth-day/#comments Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:37:13 +0000 BKessler http://www.greenrightnow.com/?p=3499 By Barbara Kessler
Green Right Now
It’s almost April 22, Earth Day, and the green living tips are flying at us like meteors.
A few from our mail:

From Car MD – Keep your car maintained, tires inflated, don’t make unnecessary trips, and if you’re going to idle for more than 10 seconds, turn the gas-hound off. Wow. [...]

]]> By Barbara Kessler
Green Right Now

It’s almost April 22, Earth Day, and the green living tips are flying at us like meteors.

A few from our mail:

• From Car MD – Keep your car maintained, tires inflated, don’t make unnecessary trips, and if you’re going to idle for more than 10 seconds, turn the gas-hound off. Wow. That’s the lowest bar on idling we’ve seen yet. It won’t work in traffic, but maybe we should all rethink the drive-through.

• From the Netherlands Board of Tourism & Conventions — Go Dutch! Apparently pretty much everyone in Amsterdam owns a bike, and more importantly, they use it. Half the city’s traffic comes from bikes, according to the NBTC, which urges us this week to “be inspired by the Dutch way to a greener life.” Ride a bike, and consider buying a Dutch bikes at Batavus. OK, I hadn’t thought of it. But I suppose I could split the cost with my spouse. (Get it, split the cost….) Okay, another Dutch treat that caught my eye: Nothing brand cardboard modular offices. Now that’s just so…biodegradable. Actually they’re beautiful, and they could fill a niche in America. Office shutting down? Just fold and leave!

• And finally, this piece of wisdom from SunRidge Farms in California — Buy in bulk. Sunridge sells its nuts, snacks and trail mixes to consumers and stores in bulk packages — actually in smaller packages that are packaged together. This way ya doesn’t have ta make so many darn trips to the store. Sunridge asks us to order online from Defenders of Wildlife, where lo, they’ve got quite a little online enterprise, selling groceries and beauty supplies. You get economical bulk products, Defenders gets money to do what it does.  And you can sleep at night because you did your part for those besieged Rocky Mountain Gray Wolves. So buy bulk to be green. We’re big on that one.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

]]> http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/04/21/getting-tipsy-on-green-tips-for-earth-day/feed/ 1 http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/03/05/survey-reports-that-majority-of-young-adults-are-likely-to-buy-green-products/ http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/03/05/survey-reports-that-majority-of-young-adults-are-likely-to-buy-green-products/#comments Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:46:04 +0000 BKessler http://www.greenrightnow.com/?p=2982 Green Right Now Reports:

In the category of almost-not-news, a new poll reports that 18-to 34-year-olds are a few shades greener than their parents and grandparents.

The survey, by EnviroMedia Social Marketing, found that while 51 percent of all Americans believe climate change is caused by human activities, 64 percent of those ages 18 to 34 believe it is a human-induced scourge.

In addition the study found that:

• 29 percent of all Americans believe that climate change is occurring naturally, making a grand total of 80 percent of the population that’s on board that climate change is happening – either because of human pollution or due to weird confluences of natural events.

]]> Green Right Now Reports:

In the category of almost-not-news, a new poll reports that 18-to 34-year-olds are a few shades greener than their parents and grandparents.

The survey, by EnviroMedia Social Marketing, found that while 51 percent of all Americans believe climate change is caused by human activities, 64 percent of those ages 18 to 34 believe it is a human-induced scourge.

In addition the study found that:

• 29 percent of all Americans believe that climate change is occurring naturally, making a grand total of 80 percent of the population that’s on board that climate change is happening – either because of human pollution or due to weird confluences of natural events.

• The remaining Americans believe either that climate change has not been proven (15 percent) or that it does not exist (3 percent).

• “A surprising 82 percent of Americans say they’re still buying green products despite changes in the economy.”

Furthermore, the researchers also determined that those who believe climate change is caused by humans are twice as likely to buy green products as those who believe climate change is occurring naturally.

They concluded that businesses should pay attention to green-leanings of these young consumers, and also push onward with producing greener products in general.

These findings “should serve as a wake-up call to sellers and marketers of current and future green products and to any company in general,” said Kevin Tuerff, cofounder and CEO of Green Canary Sustainability Consulting, in a statement. Green Canary is a subsidiary of EnviroMedia.  “These consumers reward companies providing services and products that are less toxic, less packaged and less energy intensive.”

The telephone survey of 1,000 people in late January also found that:

• Those who believe climate change is caused by human activity are more likely to have attended college; and they believe that green transportation or electricity from renewable resources is most beneficial for the environment (rather than recycling or minimal/reduced packaging).

• Those who say climate change is naturally occurring, or it still needs to be proven scientifically, are still taking steps to help the environment by recycling and using some green products.

Results of the survey are being released at The Wall Street Journal’s gathering of business leaders in Santa Barbara, Calif., this week (March 4-6) called “ECO:nomics, Creating Environmental Capital”.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

]]> http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/03/05/survey-reports-that-majority-of-young-adults-are-likely-to-buy-green-products/feed/ 0 http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/02/13/us-china-cooperate-on-green-ideas/ http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/02/13/us-china-cooperate-on-green-ideas/#comments Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:12:52 +0000 KGO http://www.greenrightnow.com/?p=2792 By David Louie
KGO – San Francisco

SUNNYVALE, CA — Creating green-tech jobs is one of the key goals of the federal stimulus bill. It’s a big part of the economic future of the country.

But it’s also a focus in other parts of the world — like china.

>Watch Now

]]> By David Louie
KGO – San Francisco

SUNNYVALE, CA — Creating green-tech jobs is one of the key goals of the federal stimulus bill. It’s a big part of the economic future of the country.

But it’s also a focus in other parts of the world — like china.

>Watch Now

]]> http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/02/13/us-china-cooperate-on-green-ideas/feed/ 0 !!!