By Hosea Sanders

CHICAGO (WLS) — They say you’re never too young to learn how to take care of the planet. It’s all happening at a child care center in Chicago’s West Loop, where they take the phrase “living green” very seriously. They are making environmentalists out of youngsters who can’t even say the word. In this place, they’re teaching those lessons — almost from birth. >> Read the full story

Certain species of large whales, particularly humpbacks, are less threatened now than they were when whaling bans took effect in the ’80s, according to a new report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The Geneva-based IUCN, which describes itself as “the world’s oldest and largest global environmental network” and counts nearly eleven thousand scientists around the world as volunteers, is the author of a Red List which for four decades has kept tabs on the status of plant and animal species worldwide, focusing on conveying “the urgency and scale of conservation problems to the public and policy makers, and to motivate the global community to try to reduce species extinctions.”

In the 2008 Red List, the humpback’s situation is described as one of “Least Concern,” meaning its odds of extinction are low, although two subpopulations are still considered “Endangered.” (This page provides an exhaustive explanation of the organization’s approach to categorizing risk.) The group attributes the whales’ resurgence to legal protections against commercial hunting, though it says whales do face the threat of accidental entanglement in fishing gear, strandings caused by military sonar, and the various effects of climate change.

The news, unsurprisingly, is not all good. The latest Red List finds that “Most small coastal and freshwater cetaceans,” — a category that includes dolphins and porpoise — “are moving closer to extinction.” The IUCN also notes that the overall picture could be worse than reported, since they don’t have enough data to make accurate assessments of nearly half of cetacean species.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

By John DeFore

As the World Bank recently acknowledged, even noble efforts to help the world’s less fortunate people can have negative side effects. As Americans gain a better understanding of developing nations’ growing contributions to environmental problems, it’s only natural for them to second-guess their charitable giving.

One online resource for such gifts, Global Giving, has just launched an effort to address those concerns. Its Global Giving Green campaign, which went online today, aims to identify charitable projects that either target green concerns directly or help communities without, say, pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

An admirably straightforward page of GGG’s site breaks candidate projects into four categories: emissions reduction, reforestation, green technology and climate-change education. Each heading features a handful of projects scattered around the world: In the Philippines, there’s an effort to retrofit heavy-polluting taxis; in Honduras, fuel-efficient stoves are being supplied to poor families; in sub-Saharan Africa, villages are installing water pumps that transform child’s play into pumping power. Each project page lists specific fund-raising goals, shows how much has been raised to date, and ties donation amounts to something concrete: $100, for example, is enough capital for 10 farmers in Chiapas to start an organic vegetable collective.

While the project’s founders (former World Bank executives) focus mainly on international charity — noting not only concentrations of need on other continents, but the dramatic impact that even small donations can have there — they don’t ignore domestic needs entirely: One effort singled out for GGG attention is seeking $50,600 to install solar energy systems in 10 low-income homes in the U.S.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

By Nima Kapadia

An enormous recreation center in Flagstaff, Ariz., is taking advantage of the state’s sunny weather to warm two indoor and outdoor body slides, a family whirlpool and a three-lane lap pool: about 100,000 gallons.

The Aquaplex Recreation Center will use a 70-panel solar heating system for its multiple pools in a facility that is larger than 51,000 square feet. 

Novan Solar Inc. of Golden, Colo., provided the turnkey solar thermal system. The company’s founder and president, Jacob Futro, said in a statement: “Their (the city of Flagstaff’s) adoption of solar energy demonstrates a real commitment to their patrons, taxpayers and the environment.”

The Aquaplex’s heating system, which will generate 92 million BTUs of energy each year. More than 60 tons of carbon dioxide will also be offset, which is the equivalent of:

• Energy use in 11 passenger cars
• 140 barrels of oil
• 6,810 gallons of gasoline
• Electricity use in 8 homes

Novan is one of the largest providers of solar heating in the Southwest. In addition to Aquaplex, the company built a 144-solar panel water heating system for the North Boulder Recreation Center in Colorado and 70-panel system for the New Erie Colorado Recreation Center. Novan also has projects pending in Utah and New Mexico.

For more information on the Aquaplex Recreation Center, which will also feature amenities such as a gymnasium, dance room and climbing wall, visit the City of Flagstaff’s website. 

Photo: © Holger Gurski | Dreamstime.com

The well was dry beside the door,
And so we went with pail and can
Across the fields behind the house
To seek the brook, if still it ran; . . .

- Robert Frost’s “Going for Water”

Every year, more about the world’s worsening water crisis is revealed: Who has potable water, sanitation and fresh drinking water – and who doesn’t.

The statistics are foreboding: The United Nations, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the Global Water Trust, World Water Council, the Pacific Institute and other international organizations warn us that by 2025, two-thirds of the Earth’s population will live in water-strapped countries. By mid-century, they say, two out of three people around the globe may not have potable water, and by the end of this century, the number of people without access to fresh drinking water – just under a billion today – could double.

Water, water, they tell us, is not everywhere.

Water that humans can use, that is. The world’s population uses about 1 percent of all the water on Earth, according to U.S. Geological Survey charts. The remaining 99 percent of the planet’s water is salty or brackish, or it is trapped in glaciers and ice.

But if scientists have the technology to desalinate water, or to super clean storm-drainage water or contaminated groundwater, isn’t that reason for optimism? And if, according to these same global entities, the number of people who have fresh drinking water has actually increased in the past couple of years, isn’t that good news?

Yes, says Pasquale Steduto. He is an expert in water-use efficiency and productivity, and has spent the past 20 years working in agriculture-water related issues. Because of his skills, Steduto is the chief of Water Service for the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization. The Rome-based water scientist spoke at length to Greenrightnow.com last week, offering a big-picture perspective on the state of the world’s water.

Careful not to paint too rosy a scenario, Steduto (pictured) expresses optimism: there is more access to fresh drinking water, and more cities and countries use new guidelines on water-system efficiency. Plus, more countries are acknowledging that all humans have a basic right to clean water (such as South Africa in a recent, unprecedented high court ruling).

Multinational corporations are at least attempting, Steduto says, to look at the water crisis from a humanitarian standpoint – such as in last year’s CEO Water Mandate.

The world’s perception of water – how we use it, how we take it for granted – is changing rapidly, experts say. Whether it is due to necessity or market forces, governments and individuals are changing how they use water and decide their water needs.

“There is a shift in a way, in lifestyle choices and behaviors, ” Steduto says. “The shift of the paradigm is, ‘O.K., we cannot really go too much toward increasing the supply. Are we in a position to reduce the demand, or no?’

The other day, at the swank Blue Water Grill in downtown Chicago, chef Eric Kendrick held a treasure trove of

Photo by Terri O’Hara
Chef Eric Kendrick and a bumper crop of locally grown food.

vegetables in a huge amber bowl. The haul, plucked fresh from a local farmer’s market, included deep purple torpedo onions, colorful zucchini flowers, flavorful French breakfast radishes, robust heads of yellow and purple cauliflower, and hearty Queen Ann cherries.

It was a good day, judging by Kendrick’s effusive praise.

The finds were remarkable, not only because of their uniqueness and variety, but because shopping at the Green City Market in Lincoln Park is one of the many practices that helps Blue Water Grill maintain its cachet as a “green restaurant.” Serving locally grown foods, for example, helps reduce the fossil fuel pollution associated with transportation.

It’s not easy being green, but it’s well worth the effort, say Kendrick (pictured) and Charles Przybylinski, the director of operations for Blue Water Grill for 18 months. Przbylinski has overseen a large part of the restaurant’s green endeavors.

The restaurant, which opened more than 3 years ago, is owned by B.R. Guest Restaurants, which owns 13 eateries that have received the coveted green certification from the national non-profit Green Restaurant Association. The Boston-based organization, founded by Michael Oshman, has about 260 members. The number recently dipped from about 350 after a chain that he declined to name failed to meet compliance standards. Members are charged an annual fee of $500 to $4,200, depending on their size, and they receive a “Green Restaurant” seal for their window after completing some important first steps.

Some of these steps require eateries to use a comprehensive recycling program for all products, replace all polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) products, and phase in environmental efforts each year, including conserving water, composting, converting to chlorine-free paper products and using non-toxic cleaning and chemical products.

Photo by Terri O’Hara
Charles Pryzybylinski, the restaurant’s director of operations, and Chef Eric Kendrick, right, have taken extensive steps to have their business declared ‘green.’

For its part, B.R. Guest restaurants recycle glass, cardboard, plastic and metals, and have installed water-efficient faucets. At the Chicago location, to-go containers are made of 30 percent post consumer material and are toted away in plain brown paper bags. At the tables, consumers use cloth napkins and bamboo butter knives.

To ensure compliance, the association conducts spot checks of restaurants, looking more at invoices than products to determine whether the staff is indeed buying toxic-free cleaning supplies, energy efficient bulbs and chemical-free paper products. Blue Water Grill uses peroxide and citrus-based cleaners around the restaurant, Przybylinski said.

“We don’t preach,’’ Oshman said of the restaurant association. “They already know this is the right thing. We have restaurants from Tavern on The Green (New York’s famed upscale restaurant Central Park) to crunchy granola that are green certified.’’

From New York to Chicago to Little Rock, Ark. to Los Angeles, restaurants are going green to help save the environment and to tap the wallets of environmentally savvy consumers.

A recent survey by the National Restaurant Association found that 62 percent of consumers said they would likely choose a restaurant based on its environmental friendliness.

You can always tell a garment that has come back from the dry cleaners. There’s that faint smell that seems to linger on the item, and in the closet, until that shirt or jacket gets worn again. The smell comes from the solvent used in the dry cleaning process, and chances are it’s not particularly good for you or the environment.

Perchloroethylene (PERC) is the most common chemical fluid used in dry cleaning. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), about 28,000 U.S. dry cleaners use perc, which is the only airborne toxin emitted from the dry cleaning process. Scientists with the EPA say that acute exposure to perc can cause eye, nose and throat irritation, headache as well as a loss of coordination, and have identified perc as a “possible to probable human carcinogen.”

The state of California, which declared perc a toxic chemical in 1991, has been more explicit. The state’s health officials say that the chemical can cause esophageal cancer, lymphoma, cervical and bladder cancer.

The dry cleaning industry, however, says perc is safe for dry cleaning because when clothes are properly cleaned there’s no chemical residue on the fabric, and as long as the equipment doesn’t leak, there’s no danger to the environment. Given these somewhat contradictory pieces of information, what can a wary consumer do?

First, you can forgo dry cleaning by shopping for clothing that doesn’t require it. You can ask that your clothes be wet cleaned — your “dry” cleaners may offer that option — or you can experiment at home with cold water, some clothing labeled dry clean can be gently washed.

Unfortunately, keeping at arm’s length from a dry cleaners won’t solve the perc problem: Also at issue, is the fact that if a dry cleaning machine leaks, perc can enter the ground and contaminate drinking water. It can also be an air pollutant since much of perc’s fumes escape into the outside through open windows, vents and air-conditioners.

Slowly, drycleaners are starting to use new machines that diminish the amount of perc that escapes during the cleaning process. The EPA is hopeful that environmental costs will be reduced thanks to recent improvements to dry cleaning equipment and more cautious operating practices.

Beginning July 27, the EPA will require all owners and operators of facilities using perc solvents to make sure their machines are inspected while in operation for vapor leaks monthly.

In January 2007, the California Air Resources Board put in place the country’s first statewide ban on perchloroethylene. The law requires that by 2023, no machines using perc will be allowed. And if a dry cleaners uses a machine that is 15 years or older, the machine must be disposed of by 2010. In California, one in 10 wells have been contaminated by perc.

In Missouri, all dry-cleaning facilities, including coin-operated dry cleaners, must register with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The facilities pay an annual surcharge based on the number of gallons of chlorinated solvents used during the calendar year. That money goes to the Hazardous Waste Program’s Drycleaning Environmental Trust Fund which investigates, assesses and re-mediates dry cleaning issues. In addition, Missouri dry-cleaning facilities that use PERC are required to pay an annual fee in accordance with EPA’s national perc air emissions standard.

Chris Allsbrook, a certified professional dry cleaner and a spokesperson for the Dry Cleaning and Laundry Institute International, says that all dry cleaning involves a solvent, whether it’s perchloroethylene, carbon dioxide or a petroleum-based solution. “Think of a front-loading washing machine,” she says. “You put in the clothes, close the door and as the clothes spin, the solvent is injected into the machine. The reason it’s called ‘dry’ cleaning is that the solvent dries immediately, similar to rubbing alcohol. There’s no dryer involved.” After the cleaning cycle, the solvent is drained and the “extract” cycle removes any excess solvent from the clothes.

The advantages to dry cleaning are that it can remove oil and grease stains that may be difficult to remove in ordinary home washing, according to the Dry Cleaning and Laundry Institute.

Percholoroethylene was introduced in the 1930s, according the institute. Until that time, the fluids used in the dry-cleaning process were dangerously flammable. Perc is a nonflammable solvent.

The institute believes that all dry cleaning procedures are safe as long as the machines don’t leak, says Allsbrook. But what about that dry-cleaning smell? That, he says, could be from the sizing used by some dry cleaners. “There should be no odor in a properly cleaned garment.”

Robert Randolph, an environmental engineer with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ air pollution division, says some people are more sensitive to the solvent smell than others. He says if using the dry cleaning method to clean clothes, it’s best to immediately remove the garment from the bag and air it out.

“Perchloroethylene (perc) has been found to be one of the best dry cleaning solvents,” he says. “The key is to make sure the dry cleaning equipment is working properly. “

Zebao Li with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality deals with the environmental contamination caused by solvents such as perc. “The danger of perchloroethylene,” he says, “is if it leaks into the ground water. This will impact the drinking water.” Like Randolph, he stresses that dry cleaners have to be sure that their machines do not leak.

Cal Baier-Anderson, a health scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, has worked previously with Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites. She says dry-cleaning facilities were often one of the sites she dealt with. “Perc contamination is a problem across the country,” says Baier-Anderson, who trained as a toxicologist. “When perc gets into ground water, it forms dense non-aquaeous phase liquids (DNAL) which pools at the bottom of the aquifer. Because it is dense, it drops to the bottom. It’s like a sponge that has too much soap in it – it continuously bleeds out more solvent. You could also compare it to putting honey into cold water. The honey drops to the bottom of the glass and slowly dissolves. In the case of perc, it takes a very long time to dissolve and is very hard to remove.”

In the 2008 Society of Toxicology Annual Report, Baier-Anderson noted the following:

Perc exposure is associated with both cancer and non-cancerous effects. Based on animal studies, there appear to be multiple types of tumors that are involved following both ingestion and inhalation, and there is a consistent association between human exposure and increased risk of several different types of cancer.

Baier-Anderson notes that, “as with any chemical, there are a number of areas of uncertainty that must be accounted for: Individual variability in response to exposure; the existence of individuals who might be more sensitive; the biological pathways leading to increased cancer risks have not been fully characterized — the impact is difficult to assess.”

So, avoiding dry cleaning using the perc solvent seems to make sense. But what are some of the alternative options?

• Petroleum-based and silicone-based solvents are alternatives to using perc. One common petroleum solvent is DF-2000, dubbed an “organic” solvent and made by ExxonMobil. Some dry cleaners have switched to DF-2000, but it is a known irritant and emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that can enter the atmosphere. Because DF-2000 is a hydrocarbon, it is scientifically classified as “organic” but this is misleading. In this case, the scientific definition of “organic” should not be confused with something that is all-natural. As for silicone, the verdict is still out on it. The California Air Resources Board conducted a review and deemed that it is an acceptable alternative to perc. The Dry Cleaning Station, located in Minneapolis, is one company that uses silicone. CEO John Campbell says their product is called Green Earth and was developed by Procter & Gamble. It doesn’t clean quite as well as perc, but you can get as good results if you treat the fabric carefully, he said. In some respects, it’s a superior product, “It leaves clothes softer and fresher than perc. And if it gets spilled anywhere, it is not a contaminant,” he says. Campbell says the growing company, which he helped found in 1993, has about 100 stores in about 25 states.

• Another option to dry cleaning with perc is using liquid carbon dioxide as the solvent, along with detergent. This is a relatively new technology that uses high pressure to convert carbon dioxide gas to liquid form. It then becomes a carrier of biodegradable soaps, the same way water does in a washing machine. Minimal carbon dioxide is lost into the air, according to the environmental website, care2.com. Green Apple Cleaners, with locations in New York and New Jersey, uses this type of cleaning, employing a Solvair Cleaning System (pictured).

• Another idea is to wash the garment by hand — despite what a label might say, many clothes can be washed this way. Use a mild detergent and gently churn the clothes in cool water. Be sure not to twist or wring out wool or silk. For stains in wool or silk, try spot cleaning with vinegar or lemon juice, testing for dye color fastness first. Then carefully press water from the fabric. Lay wool items flat on a towel and shape before drying. Silk and rayon garments should be hung up.

• Yet another possibility is to wet clean the item. The Dry Cleaning Institute’s Chris Allsbrook says wet cleaning is similar to dry cleaning but doesn’t use solvents. The clothes are put into a front washer-type machine and as they spin, detergents are injected into the machine. When done, the clothes come out wet and are then put in a dryer. The EPA also offers a list of wet cleaners.

Consumer Reports was pleased with the state of California’s 2007 decision and with the direction the EPA is headed, but in a blog post states: “We’d like to see the EPA limit perc’s use once and for all – for every state in the country. In the meantime, consumers can help by seeking out facilities that use perc-free dry cleaning methods.”

Consumers can also find out more by visiting the EPA’s FAQ on dry cleaning.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

You’ve read the reports in the media – or heard them on the nightly news – that a growing number of American cities are banning the use of Styrofoam, a.k.a. polystyrene foam, in restaurants and food services, due to health and environmental concerns.

Some observers say it isn’t fair or necessary to institute government-imposed restrictions on a free-market economy, but the anti-Styrofoam forces say it is necessary because the non-biodegradable, air-puffed plastic hangs around landfills (and parks and waterways) for hundreds of years, unlike more earth-friendly counterparts like cups and plates made of paper products. They also claim that corporations won’t concern themselves with this environmental issue unless pushed to do so.

It’s a complicated row, this Styrofoam business and, with no real national policy or federal legislation, it’s gotten more heated on both sides. The obvious target in the debate is the restaurant and food-service industry, whose greener consumers have raised a fuss over Styrofoam in progressive urban areas like San Francisco; Portland, Oregon; and Suffolk County on Long Island.

But many purveyors of Styro-insulated hot coffee, steamy take-out food and loudly fizzing fountain cokes (only Styrofoam can give it that particular fizz, fans claim) insist that the benefits of Styrofoam outweigh the negatives. It keeps things hot. It keeps things cold. There is simply no substitute for it, plastics insiders say.

Which is why some major fast-food chains (Sonic and Chick-Fil-A , for example) are still packing it up in polystyrene. Of those two biggies, both corporations defend their stances but also promise that they are reviewing all options.

“Sonic’s customers have traditionally preferred foam or polystyrene over other types of cups,” a spokesperson said by email. “As it stands today, only two main options exist for disposable cups that are used extensively in the fast-food industry: polystyrene foam or plastic-coated paper. While polystyrene foam accounts for less than 1% of all landfill contents, that fact doesn’t lessen consumers’ and businesses’ interest in seeking alternatives…Additionally, as societies learn more about the impact of human life on the environment, we, as a business, seek to collaborate with our supply partners to develop sustainable ways of delivering best-in-class soft drinks in a scalable and affordable way…Those conversations have begun.”

Chick-Fil-A executives commented that they are “currently working on a ‘Going Green’ initiative.” The spokesperson, Brenda Green (no joke), didn’t elaborate.

Perhaps it’s best to examine the larger picture anyway, explore what others in food service say about the general whys and why nots of Styrofoam. Maybe it should be called the Styro gyra dance – because the opinions vary so widely from one camp to the other. The American Chemistry Council does an impressive side-stepping waltz when discussing the material, trying to spin it from a different perspective.

According to an ACC affiliate, there is no real evidence that Styrofoam adds more to “the litter problem.”

In fact, Mike Levy, director of the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group, a division of ACC, says there is a mis-perception of Styrofoam’s impact on the environment and how it affects the country’s landfills. He believes that because of this, the recent bans have been misguided.

“The cities that are interested in banning or have banned it, have done so under the idea that it’s going to solve a litter problem or reduce green-house gases, and in all cases that hasn’t been shown. In one city where that happened (a ban), Portland Oregon, they did studies later, and what they found was that not only did it not cut back on litter, but, because it’s so much lighter than other waste products, that it takes up less space in landfills.”

Levy says that if the substitute were to be paper board or paper with an oil-based coating on it, that wouldn’t be any better for the “litter problem.”

Activists and alert shoppers have plenty of bones to pick with the way groceries are labeled and the way environmental or nutrition claims are monitored, or not, by the government. Yesterday, Tyson Foods announced that it is removing its “Raised Without Antibiotics” label from chicken, and has gone on record asking the USDA to clarify the rules for such labels in advertising.

The Arkansas-based company, the world’s largest poultry producer, had been using various forms of the label since it was approved by the USDA in May 2007. Initially reading simply “Raised Without Antibiotics,” the claim was modified last December to the cumbersome “Chicken Raised Without Antibiotics That Impact Antibiotic Resistance in Humans.” But legal action from competing companies and threats of a class-action consumer lawsuit eventually led to this week’s events, with Tyson making its announcement just as the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) moved to rescind its approval of the label.

Part of the issue has to do with a practice that Tyson says is “used by most of the U.S. broiler industry,” in which eggs are vaccinated before they hatch. Tyson’s position is that a chicken vaccinated before hatching has still been “raised” without antibiotics; competitors felt it was a misleading claim that gave the chicken giant an unfair marketing advantage.

One thing everyone seems to agree on is that clearer guidelines are needed. A vice president at Tyson, Dave Hogberg, put it this way in an official announcement: “We still support the idea of marketing chicken raised without antibiotics because we know it’s what most consumers want. However . . . we believe there needs to be more specific labeling and advertising protocols developed to ensure the rules are clear and application of the rules is equitable.”

The government already has admitted as much. According to a statement by FSIS Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Richard Raymond: “On May 23, FSIS notified Tyson Foods Inc. that FSIS, along with the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, will initiate a public process to review policies on ‘Raised without Antibiotics’ claims for poultry. To ensure that this process is equitable, FSIS will review any claim relating to the use of antibiotics in poultry that it has already approved for companies other than Tyson Foods, Inc.”

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

In 2002, the City of New York was recycling about a fifth of its waste, but some in the Bloomberg administration thought the program cost too much. In response to a budget crisis, the city stopped collecting glass and plastic (they continued paper and metal collection), arguing they’d save $40 million over the next year.

Happily, that policy was reversed in 2004 — partly because the savings turned out to be nowhere near the $40 million estimate. Wanting to establish that this was the right move economically as well as environmentally — not only for NYC, but for other cities that might consider trimming recycling programs — the Natural Resources Defense Council (working in conjunction with the local Department of Sanitation and other groups) commissioned an ambitious study to attach bottom-line figures comparing recycling with conventional trash disposal. Turns out recycling makes sense either way you look at it.

The report (summarized here, downloadable here) found that the cost of recycling and trash disposal are currently close to equal (disposal is $17 cheaper per ton, or 6%). But recycling will soon become a better deal: Because of the rising cost of landfilling and exporting waste, the study’s authors believe disposal will actually be more expensive than recycling “in no more than five to six years.”

Unfortunately, the city hasn’t quite returned to that 20% recycling number since weekly pick-ups resumed; city officials put the current figure at 18%. But Mayor Bloomberg has reasons beyond the budget to urge New Yorkers to recycle more avidly: Unsurprisingly, the study also demonstrated that “recycling significantly reduces the city’s global warming pollution – making it an important contributor to the Mayor’s PlaNYC 2030 goal of reducing global warming pollution by 30 percent.”

For more information on recycling in New York City see these website pages for the NYC Wasteless program.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Without Congressional action on the pending bill H.R. 6049, many of the credits will expire at the end of 2008, and are already causing uncertainty among new greener businesses trying to serve homeowners and commercial properties with improved energy systems, according to proponents like the advocacy groups, Solar-Nation.org and the World Wildlife Fund, which has set up an email form you can send to senators. Those wanting the extensions say they are needed to sustain new businesses and engender investment in emerging technologies. Among the credits that the groups want extended:

• Investment Tax Credits for Solar and Fuel Cell Technologies, including a credit for 30 percent of the cost of residential solar and fuel cell systems.

• Tax Deductions for energy efficient commercial buildings

• Tax Credits for the Manufacturers of Efficient Appliances

• Tax credits for energy efficient new homes of up to $2000 and a $500 credit for retrofits to existing homes.

The legislation has been stalled as the House and the Senate have debated how to pay for it; Senators say they don’t want to raise new taxes to cover the $54 billion bill and the House’s trial balloons to ding oil companies for some of the tab have been shot down by Senate and White House disapproval.

“Call it stalemate, call it deadlock, call it a stand-off; the bottom line is, the clean energy revolution is being strangled,” complains Solar-Nation on its website. “Every day that passes without an extension places more green jobs and investment at risk and slows down our transition to a clean energy economy.”

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Earth Day is 38 years old and still going strong. That says something about our nation’s commitment to the environment, or at least the commitment of those who’ve kept conservation issues – clean air, clean water, pure food — on the table all these years.

Photo © 2008 by Kim Komenich | Distributed by Noofangle Media
Thousands gather in San Francisco for the Green Apple Festival Sunday.

Despite the Bush Administration’s renegade status outside the global groundswell to address climate change and clean up the planet, the United States is full of conservation-minded individuals and groups. Increasingly, they’re everyone, not just “tree huggers” and certainly not just Fair Trade latte-sipping liberals, either. They’re Republicans and Baptists; Southerners and Northerners; farmers and truckers. California is chock full of environmentalists, and thank God for them. California’s attempts to put curbs on car emissions may help break a nationwide deadlock on that front; its farmers’ ability to grow organic vegetables helps us all. The Silicon Valley brain trust is working hard to unlock the answers to affordable solar power, and the state’s swaggering, eco-friendly Republican governor puts the lie to the stereotype of the wimpy environmentalist.

The truth is Earth Day was always more than the passion of just hippie types. In 1970, it was President Nixon who signed the bill enacting Earth Day. Today, some of the leaders of the new order are those good ol’ boys in West Texas where they’re tipping their cowboy hats to better see the new, towering wind turbines set up outside Sweetwater. They’re also growing organic cotton out there on the plains, more than in any other state.

Of course, some people still view environmentalist agendas skeptically. There are those who question whether humans are causing global warming, and others who say climate changes are nominal and natural and little needs to be done. These are fair debating points in a democracy. But the discussion is partly academic.

Even if you don’t believe there’s a pending global emergency, there are plenty of related fires that need attention. The U.S. is paying in precious lives and billions of dollars to retain access to the world’s dwindling oil reserves in the Middle East. Our corporations are lopping off mountaintops in Appalachia to scrape out the last coal. Like oil, it’s finite.

Midwest farmers are chasing a biofuel frenzy that’s sent a cascade of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers downstream, not to mention what it’s done to food prices.

Our little boys are being “feminized” by plastics in their environment, and it’s a good bet that the contaminants turning up in our drinking water nationwide are not an elixir for good health.

Someone referred to our “mauling” of the planet over this Earth Day weekend. It seems like a given. And we haven’t even talked about melting ice caps, flooding cities, Katrina, polar bears or food shortages.

But rather than get discouraged, we can and should act. Today, on Earth Day, and all this week, organizers would like Americans to take the simple action of calling their representatives in Washington by phoning the Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121.

Tell lawmakers you want energy alternatives, clean water and a brighter future for your children. Tell them that you:

• Support emissions limits on cars and curbs on polluting businesses to alleviate global warming.
• Want new and renewed green investment tax credits for homeowners and businesses trying to cut their energy use.
• Think American-made cars should average 35 miles per gallon or more and also should come with incentives for buyers who purchase gas sippers and hybrids.
• Want them to cut pollution and create jobs by devising a green “economic stimulus package” that fosters the growth of domestic industries like wind power.
• Support research for fuels made from algae and waste and other sources that don’t steal food-producing acres, and want Congress to encourage small farmers with government incentives for resting overworked fields and employing organic practices.

Or maybe you have a pet project that is helping the environment, like the No Child Left Inside program that would strengthen outdoor science education and get our kids back in touch with nature.

Next, you can go join the 15,000+ electronic signers of the Sky Petition posted at Earth Day Network .

It’s ask is straightforward:

Dear Members of Congress:

We elected you to lead, and are now asking you to lead us out of the climate crisis with the boldness and courage that the crisis requires. As the home of the world’s boldest innovators, the world’s strongest economy, and one of its leading democracies, the United States Congress must champion the effort to solve global warming or risk losing our economic future and our democratic principles.

We demand that Congress act now to cap greenhouse gas emissions and stop global warming by implementing the following:

1. Impose an immediate moratorium on the building of all new conventional coal-fired power plants, and require a phase out of 30 percent of existing coal plants by 2030.

2. Require that all utilities generate 30 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030.

3. Require that all new buildings, renovations and developments immediately reduce fossil-fuel energy consumption by 50 percent, and that all new buildings become ‘carbon neutral’ by 2030.

4. Protect the poor and middle class from unfairly bearing the cost of solving the climate crisis.

Happy Earth Day.