The Cash for Clunkers program, which ended this week, may have been more environmentally friendly than originally thought. The concern among environmentalists was that by tossing away old cars and buying news ones, the program encouraged a throw-away society mentality — something Americans are often accused of.

The Sierra Club, says the organization’s policy analyst Jesse Prentice-Dunn, initially had concerns that the bill was weak.

“Now, looking at the final stats,” he says, “consumers did buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. One thing that was very encouraging, was that more than 84 percent traded in trucks and other gas guzzlers; and 59 percent purchased cars.”

They may not have purchased hybrids, says Prentice-Dunn — the Prius was No. 7 on the list of cars purchased. However, the fact that they bought more fuel-efficient cars was important. The Sierra Club, he says, was encouraged by consumers’ choices.

The Cash for Clunkers program made a point, says Prentice-Dunn. “It’s time for national discussion on fuel economy. [The program] helped move us forward on curbing global warming.”

The U.S. Department of Transportation said that under the CARS program — in which consumers traded in outdated vehicles for cash rebates on new car purchases — dealers submitted 690,114 sales totaling $2.88 billion, just shy of the plan’s $3 billion budget.

The biggest industry beneficiaries were Japanese automakers Toyota, Honda and Nissan, which accounted for 41 percent of the new vehicle sales, according to the Associated Press.

That outpaced Detroit automakers General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which had a share of nearly 39 percent. Toyota Motor Corp. led the industry with 19.4 percent of new sales, followed by General Motors Co. with 17.6 percent and Ford Motor Co. with 14.4 percent, the AP reported.

The Toyota Corolla was the most popular new vehicle purchased under the program. The Honda Civic, Toyota Camry and Ford Focus held the next three top spots. All four are built in the United States.

“This program has been a lifeline to the automobile industry, jump-starting a major sector of the economy and putting people back to work,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “At the same time, we’ve been able to take old, polluting cars off the road and help consumers purchase fuel efficient vehicles.”

The Cash for Clunkers program, as the Sierra Club’s website points out, put the consumer in the driver’s seat to make the best choice. To help with this decision, the site provided readers with advice on making a selection as well as charts to help buyers calculate their savings.

President Barack Obama signed the Clunkers bill, officially named the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Program, in June. The progam was wildly embraced by consumers when it began in July, and ran out of money in just one week. A second infusion of cash put it back in business in August.

Under the program owners of gas-guzzling cars could trade them in for a $3,500 to $4,500 voucher toward a new and more energy-efficient car. The gas guzzlers had to meet certain age requirements and get 18 miles or less to the gallon.

NPR reported on the program’s merits in a broadcast earlier this week, stating that questions still remain about the program’s effect on the environment. The broadcast quoted Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Climate Change Law, as saying the program was wonderful for the economy, but had only a “middling success for greenhouse gas emissions.” In order to make a large impact, says Gerrard, the government should have demanded a greater mileage differential between the required difference in mileage for old and new vehicles.

Prentice Dunn says he agrees that there should have been more stringent fuel economy considerations in the original CARS legislation. “The Sierra Club endorsed competing proposals in both the House and Senate,” he says. “However, over the duration of the Cash for Clunkers program, we’ve seen that consumers have valued fuel economy and indeed traded in clunkers in favor of more efficient vehicles. Would this be the first policy to turn to in an effort to solve climate change? No. However, because of consumer’s decisions, this program has stimulated auto sales, taken gas-guzzling SUVs off the road and replaced them with more efficient cars and importantly, put the benefits of efficient vehicles and reducing oil dependence and global warmings in water cooler and kitchen table conversations across the country.”

Rae Tyson with the US DOT believes the program was a win-win situation. “You get vehicles off the road that use more fuel and at the same time you send the old ones to salvage yards that can recycle the car parts.”

“The engine is destroyed,” says Tyson, “but then we give salvage yards time to recycle as much of the vehicle as possible. Aluminum, for instance, may end up as the metal of a soft drink can. The only parts that can’t be recycled are shredded and crushed. “The vehicle’s end products do not end up in the landfill, says Tyson.

The Sierra Club’s Prentice-Dunn notes that the law is clear. “The car dealers have to show proof that they have disabled the engines — [the part of the vehicle] which has us addicted to oil. Then car dealers have 180 days to recycle the parts, remove mercury and sell the rest as scrap.”

Prentice-Dunn says he’s impressed with  the Department of Transportation, which “has had to do the bulk of the heaving lifting in a short time frame” to put Cash for Clunkers into effect.

Irwin Dawid, a member of the Sierra Club’s California Air Quality Committee, acknowledges that while some environmentalists dismissed the program because of its lack of improvements on vehicle efficiency, the program did succeed on two levels.

“Not only did the motorist purchase a more efficient vehicle, but guzzlers were literally being scrapped. While many parts can be pulled for resale, the engine and the drive train go to the shredder, along with the rest of the clunker that is recycled. More importantly, from an air quality perspective, the gains are more substantial than the energy savings as new vehicles, including SUVs and trucks, are far cleaner than older models because of the advanced emission technology.”

Perhaps Cash for Clunkers was not green enough for everyone. Yet it did bring fuel economy to the forefront of a needed national conversation.

Copyright © 2009 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Shall we have an omelet with vegetables and cheese for breakfast?

Let’s order a Caesar salad for lunch, with some chicken noodle soup.

And dinner – Who’s up for meatloaf, with macaroni and cheese on the side and some chocolate chip cookies to top it off?

Oh, while you’re at it, stop for a second and ask yourself: What impact does this food have on the environment?

Here’s some food for thought: An entertaining interactive tool lets you add up your “carbon points” and see just how badly those three cups of coffee are hurting the world.

The Sierra Club’s Green Home site has a lineup of virtual meals and menu items that you can drag and drop into a frying pan to calculate your “CO2e points.”

CO2e represents the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of greenhouse gases (which can include methane). The researchers who helped develop the tool established that eating 4,500 “carbon points” a day is a pretty high count. If you eat that much or more, “it equals emissions of about three tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) every year – the equivalent of taking three round-trip, three-hour flights,” the site says. Each point is 1 gram of CO2e.

The world’s food system, they say, is responsible for one-third of all the world’s greenhouse gas emissions – and eating in the U.S. contributes 5 percent of the globe’s greenhouse gases.

We took the frying pan for a whirl:

Under the “Menu items” tab we chose from an array of food options for our three meals: granola with yogurt and a banana for breakfast, Chinese chicken salad and lentil soup for lunch, and for dinner, several portions of tuna, shrimp and salmon sushi. Oh, and some sugar cookies. We can’t forget our daily dose of coffee, soda and wine, as well.

The grand total: 3,654 points. Not too bad.

Under the “Sample Meals” tab, we were presented with a selection of options that might be selected at a restaurant. For breakfast, simple cereal with a banana; for lunch, a roast beef sandwich and chips; for dinner – we couldn’t resist – an Indian feast!

Gulp. Even without the coffee, soda and wine our score was off the charts with a whopping 9.432 points. How grossly un-green.

The calculator was created with the help of Bon Appétit Management Company, which provides cafes and catering services to companies, colleges and other venues. Their emphasis is on fresh food and cooking from scratch with sustainable ingredients. Also, they cite research from more than 40 peer-reviewed research papers compiled by two science teams.

The carbon calculator isn’t perfect — it doesn’t have all possible ingredients and combinations that you encounter in a normal day. But based on your preferences, you can get a pretty good idea of where you stand.

There is also a helpful Q&A section (click on the “What do these points mean?” line under the little carbon thermometer). Among their bits of wisdom:

Don’t try to eliminate every carbon point from your total – aim for knocking off 25 percent of the points from your daily diet.

You bought it, you eat it – throwing out food eats up a lot of energy, and in a landfill it creates more methane gas released into the atmosphere.

Buy seasonal and regional – That’s obvious. But did you know that tomatoes or lettuce grown in hothouses can create more emissions than those grown in the ground that are farther away and trucked in? Or that canned tomatoes processed in season are more climate-friendly than greenhouse-grown ones? And a true offender? Tropical fruit flown from far, far away.

Cut down the beef and cheese – You don’t have to become a vegan, but the calculator says that “Livestock production causes 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases . . . Consider reducing portion sizes of meat and cheese” and eat them less often.

Don’t eat fish that’s flown – “fresh” seafood flown great distances is substantially worse, environmentally, than that which is “processed and frozen at sea.” And, they say, it’s probably not going to taste as good as the latter.

Forget processed food – Junk food, packaged snacks and cereal bars are energy gluttons.

Is organic food better? – Not necessarily, they say, because what you eat and how much you waste is more important in terms of your carbon footprint.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

From Green Right Now Reports

Real estate developer Kitson & Partners today announced an agreement with electric utility Florida Power & Light to build a large solar photovoltaic power plant at Babcock Ranch, Fla. – making it the “world’s first city powered by solar energy.”

Kitson & Partners said the 17,000-acre city of Babcock Ranch will consume less power than the proposed FPL on-site solar facilities will produce. The city also will be integrated with a “smart grid” that will provide greater efficiencies and allow residents and businesses to monitor and control their energy consumption.

The company said all commercial buildings and homes in the new city will be certified as energy-efficient and constructed according to Florida Green Building Council standards. The developers said over half of the project’s 17,000 acres will be permanently protected as greenways and open space. The planned city will be adjacent to the 73,000-acre Babcock Ranch Preserve, which was created by a conservation purchase of the state of Florida.

Babcock Ranch also will feature sustainable water management and conservation; street lamps designed to reduce light pollution; electric car chargers; and green roofs that reduce energy loss.

“We are extremely excited to build one of the world’s largest solar photovoltaic projects once the state legislative and regulatory authorities have taken the actions that would be required for us to move forward,” Eric Silagy, Florida Power & Light Company Chief Development Officer, said in a statement. “We believe large-scale solar projects like Babcock Ranch can yield significant environmental benefits to the people of Florida, create sustainable job growth and stimulate the local economy. With the continued support of Governor Crist, the Florida Legislature and the Public Service Commission, FPL is prepared to do much more in the coming years to build projects like Babcock Ranch and grow Florida’s renewable energy industry.”

When completed, Babcock Ranch will include 6 million square feet of retail, commercial, office, civic and light industrial space. Subject to State of Florida approvals, groundbreaking on the FPL solar facility is targeted for late 2009, with construction of the city center set for mid-2010, with construction of the first residential and commercial buildings in late 2010.

“I believe clean energy and sustainable development are the future of the American economy,” Syd Kitson, chairman and CEO of Kitson & Partners, said in a statement. “Babcock Ranch will be a living laboratory for companies, workers and families ready to reap the rewards of innovation. No other place in America will be home to such a concentration of new jobs and technologies, energy-saving advances and global economic leadership. I could not be more enthusiastic to be a part of this major step toward economic recovery and a sustainable future.”

A native landscaping program will cultivate plants and other crops on-site for landscaping use within Babcock Ranch, reducing the demand for water and eliminating the need to ship these products in from far-away locations. The city layout includes 40 miles of walkable paths and bikeable streets, to create a short, green commute to work.

Kate Johnson, National Clean Energy Representative for the Sierra Club, said the project has the potential to influence other U.S. cities. “Now is the time to rethink how we can make development work for everyone,” said Johnson. “Babcock Ranch has the potential of showing America that you can have a vibrant, prosperous community without sacrificing Florida’s clean air and water. Our common fight against climate change will require exactly this kind of large-scale commitment to clean technology and sustainable development. We are proud to support Babcock Ranch as it leads the way in this new direction.”

Environmentalists, community activists and some state legislators are calling for a temporary moratorium on coal plants in Texas, where 12 coal-fired power plants are proposed.

The opponents gathered at the capitol in Austin on Tuesday, saying that halting construction of the plants would help fight climate change and protect the health of local communities by cutting out coal’s toxic wastes and emissions, according to advocacy group Public Citizen.

“The evidence is now abundantly clear: Climate change is already affecting Texans and impacts will only increase in severity if we fail to act quickly. Texas already leads the nation in global warming gases. If we were our own country, Texas would rank eighth in the world among carbon emitters,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office, in a press release.

“If all 12 of our proposed coal and pet-coke fired power plants were built, Texas would emit an additional 77 million tons of carbon dioxide,” Smith said, adding that capturing 90 percent of those emissions through a process known as “carbon sequestration” is  ”feasible with current technologies.”

The problem with carbon sequestration has been that existing coal operations find the technology too expensive, and consequently, there are no such “clean coal” operations.

Activists in Texas are targeting proposed new coal plants (and pet-coke plants which burn a byproduct of oil refining) because they’d like the state to hold them to a higher standard.

Two legislators have proposed bills that would require coal companies to ante up for sequestration. Each bill – Senate Bill 126, by state Sen. Rodney Ellis, and its companion bill in the house, House Bill 4384 by Rep. Allen Vaught — would place a temporary moratorium on coal-fired power plants that lack carbon “capture and sequestration” technology.

Among those opposing new coal plants that operate in the same way as existing “dirty” plants, are many health advocates. Robert M. Malina, Ph.D, a Bay City resident representing a group opposing the White Stallion pet-coke plant, says lead- and mercury-laced coal pollution takes a heavy toll on the human body, even before one considers its impact on global warming.

“My main concern is the potential influence of emissions from these coal-fired plants on childhood development. Our children are our future and their health and well-being should not be compromised. Both mercury and lead cause irreversible mental and physical health problems in children,” Malina said in the Public Citizen news release.

“What’s more, elevated mortality from lung cancer and increased prevalence of asthma are associated with coal-fired power plants emitting sulfur dioxide, nitrous dioxide and particulate matter. Everyone living near these plants or within reach of prevailing winds will be subjected to these health risks.”

The White Stallion Energy Center website touts the new plant as having “the most environmentally advanced, cleanest, commercially proven, emission lowering technology available”. The plant could supply energy for 650,000 homes and would be “much cleaner” than older generation coal plants, the website reports.

Another supporter of a Texas coal plant moratorium, Roger Landress, represents the Clean Economy Coalition of Corpus Christi, which opposes the Las Brisas Power Plant slated to be built in the Corpus Christi Bay.

The plant, which was the subject of a protest march in February, has “no plans to sequester the 10.4 million tons of carbon dioxide it proposes to put into the atmosphere each year, (and) will almost double the EPA regulated air pollutants in our city,” Landress said.

“Corpus Christi is already dealing with the environmental and health effects of being a refining town and this addition would likely push our county into non-attainment for ozone and sulfur dioxide,” he added.

For more information on pending coal plants in Texas or any state, see the Sierra Club’s coal plant directory.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

A new coalition of animal rights, conservation and faith groups is asking for a philosophical change in how the federal government treats the nation’s diminishing wildlife, particularly of top predators, whose presence helps ensure healthy wild ecosystems.

The coalition sent a letter signed by 115 of its member groups to Agriculture Secretary nominee Tom Vilsack earlier this month asking him to end the federal government’s systematic killings of wildlife, such as wolves, coyotes, bears, cougars and prairie dogs.

The group contends that the killings are excessive and often cruel and that Wildlife Services, a department of the USDA that exterminated 2.4 million animals in 2007 should be reevaluated.

“The agency employs a host of cruel – and expensive and unnecessary – methods to kill coyotes, bears, cougars, wolves, and other wildlife. Animals are shot, poisoned, gassed in their dens, trapped, snared, clubbed, pursued by hounds, targeted from helicopters and planes, or lured to bait stations where they are shot. Other animals, even family dogs and cats, are unintentionally injured or killed by agency actions,” the petition stated.

Many people think of fish and game departments as the primary agents in the field taking action in wildlife incidents. But the USDA’s Wildlife Services is charged with protecting agricultural interests and human safety, and has long exercised wide authority to “control” animal populations around urban areas, businesses, farms and other agriculture operations and airports.

The vast majority of those animals, some 86 percent, that clash with human concerns or present safety issues (such as when birds congregate at airports or eat seeds planted for crops or intended for livestock) are dispersed, not killed, said Carol A. Bannerman, a spokeswoman for the agency.

“There is a heavy emphasis on dispersal, rather than removal,” she said.

The 2.4 million kill tally is accurate, she said, but it includes several scenarios in which lethal actions are justified. The agency, for instance, is killing the invading Gambian rat in Florida, because they are a non-native species that threatens tropical fruit operations. Similarly, millions of non-native European Starlings, which can cause intrusions at airports and also contaminate seeds intended for dairy cows, are killed.

The starlings accounted for the most killings last year, with 1.2 million being exterminated. Predators accounted for 120,000 of the total 2.4 million exterminations.

As for the shootings, poisoning and trapping of coyotes and other native predators, Bannerman says that livestock losses of 500,000 (mostly sheep and cattle) tell the story of why agents sometimes take lethal measures.

Vilsack, a former Iowa governor who is expected to be confirmed with little debate, has not responded to the coalition’s petition.

The coalition laments all intentional animal killings, but it particularly wants a reevaluation of animals like prairie dogs and coyotes, viewed in some corners as pests, and top predators, whose reputations can fuel a knee-jerk human response.

We’re too familiar with the downsides of the holiday season. Bags of new things come into the house and get hidden in already-full closets and drawers. Boxes of decorations come out of their hiding places, muscling their way into your living space. Wrapping paper and ribbons multiply like guppies, scissors and tape go missing, cookies come out of the oven and the doorbell rings. When it’s all over, we work to find places for the new stuff, stash the decorations again and vow to make next year different.

Guess what. It’s next year.

What if – indulge us here, for a moment – what if you could simplify first this year, getting rid of things you don’t use, recycling them where they’ll be appreciated? What if you could make space now, and begin the New Year with closets that don’t look like they’ve been through a natural disaster?

You can. And you’ll feel so good, because one computer, one stuffed animal or one pair of old athletic shoes can change a life.

“You’ve heard the story about the young person tossing starfish back into the ocean when they washed up on shore and were in danger of dying in the hot sun, right?” asked Barry Cranmer, president of the Share the Technology computer recycling project. “Someone asks why she was bothering because there were so many and she wouldn’t be able to rescue them all, so it wouldn’t really make any difference.

“As she tosses another back into the water, she says, ‘it will make a difference to this one.’ “

Take a quick tour of your closets, the basement, the garage. Are there books, tools, sports equipment you no longer need or use? Old towels, a wedding dress, a wheelbarrow?

Let’s save some starfish.

The kids’ room

Kendra Robins knows her territory. The founder of Project Night Night, a program that gives books, stuffed animals and blankets to homeless children, learned when she had her son that not all toys find their forever home the first time around.

Children “find their favorites, and those get super-loved,” she said. “The other ones sit on a shelf, looking cute. Things are either tattered beyond recognition or nearly pristine.”

This year, in its fourth year of operation, Project Night Night will distribute more than 25,000 tote bags to kids who don’t have homes. Each bag will include a brand new blanket, at least one children’s book, and at least one gently used stuffed animal, most of which have been donated from kids’ rooms just like yours.

“Shelters use them for welcome gifts. All of this is new and very scary to the child, and some of the shelters are not that nice. A lot of kids are frightened, and having a stuffed animal helps,” Robins said. Books are important because homeless kids often have lower academic achievements than others. And the blankets give them something new, all their own, to cuddle for security.

Project Night Night has drop-off locations in Phoenix, Arizona, the Bay Area in California and in Solon, Ohio, and five mailing addresses around the country. You can also work with the organization to keep your donations in your own community. Project Night Night sells its Tote Bags online for $3.50; you commit to packing them and donating them to a shelter of your own choosing or one of the 300 shelters with which they already have affiliations.

Socks, they’re a universal holiday gift. Anyone can use ‘em, and most anyone would appreciate an extra pair, which is why the Sierra Club settled on having a sock drive to help the homeless this season.

Buy a pair of Sierra Club brand socks (made by Devmir Inc., based in North Carolina) in a blend of organic cotton, bamboo and recycled synthetic fibers, and the conservation group will donate a pair to The National Coalition for the Homeless. Sierra Club also will get 10 percent of the proceeds in this mutual effort to raise money for Sierra Club and donate one million pairs of socks to people in need.

The socks include styles appropriate for sports, dress or casual wear and they’re not overly pricey. The women’s sports socks, with mesh insets for breathability, come in four styles ranging from $8.99 to $10.99 a pair. Men’s dress and casual socks are $10.99 to $12.99. You can order online at a special website set up for the project.

“With people really trying to stretch their dollars this holiday season, shoppers give thrice with one gift,” said Diogenes Ruiz, program organizer. “We attract shoppers who care about the environment and who would like to see their purchases help the homeless as we approach the cold winter months.”

Copyright © 2008 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Republican presidential candidate Arizona Sen. John McCain, who has historically opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), has been uncharacteristically taciturn on the energy issue since he chose pro-drilling Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Green-energy proponents find that ominous.

“With the pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate, John McCain’s race towards the Bush administration’s failed energy policy is now complete,” Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope said recently. “… No one is closer to the the oil industry than Governor Palin. Along with her support for drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts, she also opposes a windfall profit tax on the richest oil companies. …She has been dismissive of alternative energy, saying ‘alternative-energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop’, when in reality it is the oil she would like to drill that would take a decade to bring to market.”

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) in Washington, D.C., showed a similar concern over Palin.

“Obviously, it’s a very disappointing pick for a (presidential) candidate who at one time made a priority of getting us away from the old fossil fuels of the past – Sen. McCain,” said David Sandretti, the League’s communications director. “And this is someone (McCain) who at one time pointed out that the single biggest difference between himself and George Bush was his position on climate change. For him to pick someone who doesn’t even agree that human activity is contributing to it (global warming), is disturbing, to say the least,” Sandretti said.

Palin says she has a record of “standing up” to big oil, and she did increase taxes on the oil companies as governor, but her record also shows she’s far from pro-environment.

By contrast her VP opponent, Democrat Sen. Joe Biden, has a record of voting that has earned him a lifetime rating of 83 percent for supporting environmental causes, according to the LCV, which keeps Environmental Scorecards on U.S. legislators’ voting records.

Of Sen. Biden, Sandretti observes, “He has made a priority of the environment and has been scored very well on our scorecard online. This is someone with a lifetime rating of 83 percent of voting in the Senate. … Our scorecards look at a variety of issues on the environment, whether it be funding for enforcement of the EPA or whether it’s supporting positions that protect clean air, clean water and energy issues. Joe Biden has shown real leadership in putting forward an energy plan that moves us away form the dirty fossil fusel of the past and investing in clean, green energy. He was a co-sponsor of the global warming bill in the Senate. It’s very encouraging to us that both he and Sen. Obama embrace these policies. ”

League spokesman Josh McNeil adds that Sen. McCain has a 24 percent lifetime rating (a 0 in 2007 for not voting on any key environmental issues drags down his score). Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has an average score of 86 percent, with a 67 for 2007, the latter also reflecting his absence on several occasions.

All of this is telling enough for the green voting bloc, but since America’s past two vice presidents have enjoyed unprecedented influence and power, here’s a closer look at the contrasting energy-related stances of the 2008 VP nominees – Democrat Sen. Biden and Republican Palin.

Palin: Taking the opposite stance as her running mate, who until recently opposed drilling for oil in ANWR (perhaps he still does; so far not a word, not a whisper) the Alaskan governor wants to “drill, baby drill” if she and McCain get into office.

In an interview with the Financial Post last month, Palin explained her view: “About ANWR, about offshore drilling, finally it seems there’s been an awakening across the country to recognize what Alaska has to offer,” adding that there’s been “some deception” about ANWR and her plans to free up protected land there. “Of the 20 million acres up there, we’re looking at 2,000 acres as a footprint. Smaller than LAX (Los Angeles International Airport). With new technology, with directional drilling, maybe that footprint [will] shrink even more.”

Biden: Opposes drilling in ANWR. In 1986, he introduced the first bill designed to deal with climate change – the Global Climate Protection Act – and is a co-sponsor of the most recent, the Boxer-Sanders Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007. Regarding ANWR, Biden recently told Popular Mechanics magazine that he “does not believe the uncertain oil recovery justifies the risk of potentially great harm to this rich environment.”

Palin: Is suing the Bush Administration for designating the polar bear as threatened earlier this year because it could limit energy development offshore. The governor told the “Anchorage Daily News” last fall that the polar bear is “a metaphor in the highly charged climate change debate.” She added that such designations could “open the flood gate” for other endangered animals, thereby limiting oil and other industries.

College-bound high schoolers looking for an environmentally conscientious college should have no shortage of guidance this year. The Sierra Club has joined the Princeton Review in assessing the green creds of U.S. universities.

Actually, the venerable environmental group was first out with the idea, launching a “Cool Schools” rundown in 2007. Their second annual review, in the group’s Sept./Oct.Sierra magazine, settles on list of the top ten campuses — Ten That Get It — that includes colleges of all sizes from the East to the West.

While not as voluminous as the Princeton Review’s analysis of 534 institutions of higher education that produced an inaugural 2008 list, the Sierra list surely will be of interest to those seeking many opinions on the place they could call home for at least four years and to which they’ll likely become highly indebted, literally.

The list has some overlap with the Review’s (both place Middlebury College and Arizona State University in the top ten), which could be taken as reassurance that the two groups did their homework. But Sierra also offers some new top greenies, singling out the University of Colorado at Boulder and Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio, for honorary spots among the environmentally elite.

Sierra includes near misses for the top spots on a page of honorable mentions, and places those with an unfair advantage because their curriculum is focused on environmental issues on a list called shining stars.

It also throws down the gantlet to a few colleges the Sierra crew thinks need to get their heads in the game. That list: 5 That Fail.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Fires that broke out Monday in Maltby, Washington, outside of Seattle, consumed three new luxury homes and damaged a fourth (firefighters were able to save the fifth). The culprits, if preliminary evidence is to be believed, consider themselves environmentalists.

A sign nearby, scrawled on a sheet, claimed the fires were set by the Earth Liberation Front, a group of radicals who have been setting fires and vandalizing property for years in the name of environmentalism. The message (which ATF investigators have been careful to note hasn’t been definitively linked to the group) described the homes as “McMansions” and disputed their green marketing claims.

The houses at the Quinn’s Crossing development, shown off during Seattle’s 2007 Street of Dreams tour, certainly weren’t modest. Each was around 4,500 square feet and cost nearly $2 million. But size aside, the builder had employed green building practices like using reclaimed lumber and designing landscaping that required minimal water. A sales website for the properties had touted them as “gentler on the environment and also sized right,” but also detailed luxury touches like two-story waterfalls and “espresso stations” that don’t necessarily fall neatly into the green aesthetic.

Established environmental groups were quick to denounce the attacks. Dave Willett, national press secretary of the Sierra Club, says “we strongly condemn acts of violence done in the name of the environment and think it’s very harmful to our cause. There’s a role for different kinds of protest, including civil disobedience, but acts of violence are a whole different thing, including acts against property — we’re not ambivalent about that at all.”

Moreover, the fact that the houses hadn’t been sold and were unoccupied doesn’t make them simple crimes against property “the biggest concern when these things happen is the potential for people or animals to be hurt – just because there aren’t people living in the homes, any time you’re going to require rescue or fire personnel, they’re going to be putting their lives on the line to stop something that shouldn’t have happened in the first place.”

He went further to describe such sabotage as not only wrong but ineffective: “I do know that in most cases, acts of violence aren’t what stop developments that need to be stopped. What has worked in the past is democratic participation. In many cases, where people resort to arson and vandalism they don’t stop the project — with the amount of money involved in this development, it’s likely they’ll now rebuild and use twice the resources…These are not people who are thinking strategically.”

Then there’s the not-inconsequential immediate environmental harm caused by the saboteurs — the carbon released by the blaze and the fumes produced by any hazardous materials that might have been on the site.

Jon Coifman, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, takes science seriously enough to refuse to comment on how the fire’s impact balances against that of the construction itself. “I honestly don’t know, without digging much more deeply into this,” he says, explaining that the numbers would vary widely depending on details like the kinds of varnish used and the amount of plastic in fixtures. But he concedes that “it’s hard to see how someone’s honest agenda here is strictly a concern for the environment. It certainly would be ironic to see that the pollution exceeded what you had already.”

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media