simple + green

Republican Presidential nominee-to-be, Senator John McCain,

is calling for an emissions limit to fight global warming.

Well, it’s an election year, after all.

Sen. John McCain sought to distance himself from President Bush on Monday as he called for a mandatory limit on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States to combat climate change.

McCain, in a speech at a wind power company, also pledged to work with the European Union to diplomatically engage China and India, two of the world’s biggest polluters, if the nations refuse to participate in an international agreement to slow global warming.

McCain has some pretty nutty ideas, and ticking off China is certainly one of them.

Part of me wants to be fair, and applaud his stance. But the man has a pretty weak record when it comes to his environmentally-focused Senate votes.

And this speech, while possibly sincere, may just be campaign rhetoric:

In speeches on the campaign trail, McCain frequently highlights the threat of climate change in speeches, but he has a mixed record on the environment in the Senate. In recent years, he has pushed legislation to curb emissions that contribute to climate change, but he has missed votes on increasing fuel economy standards and has opposed tax breaks meant to encourage alternative energy.

In his speech Monday, the presumptive Republican president nominee renewed his support for a cap-and-trade system in which power plants and other polluters could meet limits on greenhouse gases by either reducing emissions on their own or buying credits from more efficient producers.

So now McCain joins Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in taking swifter action against global warming. Which is much better than the current administration can claim.

May the most Green (and sane) candidate win!

image credit: 4×4jeepchick

According to some US government officials, wind power will be the main weapon in the fight against global warming. And they have a plan.

Sort of.

The US Energy Department says windmills could supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030 and put a huge dent in greenhouse gas emissions.

Windmills spinning over the Great Plains and along the coasts could supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity by the year 2030 and put a significant dent in greenhouse gas emissions, federal officials said Monday.

Although wind farms now generate just 1 percent of the nation’s electricity, a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy found that wind power could play a far larger role in the future. It could supply roughly the same percentage of the nation’s power as nuclear plants provide today.

The main point from all of this is the word ‘could, as this is not a prediction. There doesn’t seem to be an actual plan to roll this out.

Not yet.

But for some of us, wind power is already in the mix.

Consider:
1. California is already a significant source of wind power.
2. In 2006, 1.8% of the state’s electricity was generated by wind power. That number should continue to grow.

But also consider that a heat wave, caused by fading summer winds off of the Pacific, stops wind power generation.

Allegedly, this could be mitigated by power sharing between windmill farms in different regions.

The main way to accomplish an integrated wind power solution, according to the article, is to create windmill farms throughout the Great Plains portion of the country.

To collect and distribute to different parts of the country equals an infrastructure. And that would be significantly expensive.

Once the US Government steps in, we can hope that the outcome is a broad system of windmills, generating and sharing energy. This is definitely a story to watch.

So: will Obama, Hillary or McCain talk this up as they stump for the office of President?

(read the full report here)

Here is a very cool blog I found via the Treehugger forum:

The Green Athlete is a blog by Chris Lieto, three-time Ironman Champion and former U.S. National Ironman Champion. It’s a really cool resource, and place to keep up with Lieto’s adventures and events.

Here is the Green Athlete mission statement:

The Green Athlete, an International campaign led by Pro Triathlete Chris Lieto, provides resources and ideas that support athletes in their effort to live green. The Green Athlete campaign encourages athletes of all levels and abilities who lead busy lives and want to make small changes that add up to big results. A core component of the campaign, The Green Athlete Web site, provides weekly tips that cover everything from where to recycle your running shoes to what food choices will help make a difference.

As a runner always looking to find ways to be more green, this is a fantastic resource. For me, the product reviews (running shoes, especially) will likely be the most helpful.

And I get to learn a little more about Chris Lieto and his friends and fellow Green Athletes.

Of interest, he also links out to these other Green Athletes (some of which I’ve heard of, some of which I haven’t):
Laird Hamilton
Ian Thorpe
Bob Burnquist
David “Calamity” James

I caught this item about Colorado Rockies pitcher Jeff Francis in the latest ESPN Magazine:

The number = $15K
When they rang in 2008, Rockies Pitcher Jeff Francis and his wife, Allison, resolved to become more conscious of the environment.

So they donated $15,000 of their own green to purchase 250 recycling bins for Coors Field. There’s one next to every ballparks trashcan.

“We recycle, we compost, we try to do things that really aren’t difficult, but could make a big impact on the world,” Jeff says. Nice save for a starter.

How cool is that? Pro athletes, like musicians and actors, have access to large amounts of money. Yet most athletes don’t get active in causes like this.

But give credit to Jeff Francis: he really put himself out there to help.

I wonder how many others have done something like this without the publicity.

If you have any anecdotes like this, drop me a comment!

Here are 3 updates on the forthcoming hybrid Cadillac Escalade - better known as the Eli Manning Superbowl MVP SUV!

** Please note that I’m not in the market for a hybrid SUV - instead, I find the unveiling of this car interesting. The buzz around the Escalade coming to market brings it into focus for me.

1. China: the Escalade made an appearance at the recent Beijing Auto Show, where it was announced that it would be available in China in 2009.

What the Beijing Auto Show also witnessed this year was the Cadillac Escalade hybrid which would launched in China next year. Cadillac Escalade is powered by a fuel saving 2-Mode Hybrid system.

2. UK: They’re taking orders for the Escalade, which is due to be available in summer:

American Car Imports of London one of the UK’s leading American vehicle importers are taking orders now for the new 2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid. The latest luxury SUV from Cadillac will be in the showrooms at the end of summer 2008 and initially just the standard wheel-base version will be available as a Hybrid.

3. As a reminder, the Hybrid Escalade will get 20 mpg combined, compared to 14 mpg in the city for the regular Yukon.

So, the US projection is still late 2008 for this car to hit the market, with sometime the following year for certain international markets.

Now, when will Eli Manning get his?

image credit: Jellaluna

As California looks at water rationing, after an unusually dry spring, maintaining a yard will get challenging.

PlanetGreen posted some good tips on being Green by keeping your lawns fresh and green:

Tips from Minimize the Water You Use on Your Lawn:

* Learn what your community’s restrictions are.
* Water well to encourage deep root growth.
* Water early in the morning.
* Don’t water the street or sidewalk.
* Avoid runoff
* Water different areas with different amounts
* Consider letting your lawn go dormant this summer.

(and, if all else fails):
* Think about getting rid of the lawn altogether

We need to think about making these changes. California may need to ration water, after having the driest spring in 150 years (!)

In fact, San Francisco and Marin County counties have asked residents and businesses over the past year to cut water usage voluntarily by 10 to 20 percent. Not every county is in the same spot, but across the board this is a time to conserve.

Even if water rationing is not mandated, here are some really good tips for conserving water:

Lawns: Water between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Cars: Use a bucket and a hose with shutoff nozzle to wash cars or go to a car wash that recycles and reuses its water.

Yards: Don’t water more than three days a week or on consecutive days.

Laundry: Put full loads into front-loading machines.

Leaks: Find and repair, particularly in toilets.

Driveways: Use a broom, not a hose, to clean them.

Pools: Cover pools and hot tubs when not in use.

Or is it?

Green Daily has a very interesting recent post covering this very idea.

Some of the main points are:

* Organic milk requires as much as 80% more land use than conventional. This has the potential to raise global warming and release more nitrates into groundwater.

* Organic farms use more fuel per vegetable because each acre has a smaller yield than conventional farming.

* There is no correlation between pesticides and rising cancer rates. In fact, cancer rates are falling.

* There is no conclusive evidence that organic food is healthier. As soon as one study comes out claiming it is, another one is released rebutting it.

Of course, each of these is subject to contradiction. And doubt.

The Daily Green post is based on a recent article by Ronald Bailey, (which in turn is based on an article in the Independent), who admits in the lead up that, while he buys organic produce, he is “strongly against over-hyped sustainability and nutritional claims for organic foods.”

In other words, he is aiming to debunk much of what we - organic consumers - base our choices on. These aren’t hard to dispute: the jury has long been out on benefits of organic foods. While most studies find that eliminating pesticides is a positive, the other side of the coin is less clear.

As #4 of his “Myths”, Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous, Bailey lifts right from the Independent article:

The proponents of organic food – particularly celebrities, such as Gwyneth Paltrow, who have jumped on the organic bandwagon – say there is a “cocktail effect” of pesticides. Some point to an “epidemic of cancer”. In fact, there is no epidemic of cancer. When age-standardised, cancer rates are falling dramatically and have been doing so for 50 years.

This is all given with no further attribution, facts or evidence. What is the source for information? The U. S. National Cancer Institute, for one, has been accused of manipulating their cancer statistics. What is the likelihood that other countries have government agencies that likewise provide less than true information?

To be clear: the Independent is UK-based. So when information such as this is quoted:

Less than 1 per cent of the food sold in Britain is organic

consider that other non-attributed details in the article are likely to be UK-focused. Which makes me wonder if a US-based viewpoint would read the same.

The real question: will any of this information dissuade you from buying organic?

Or are you worried that those that are uninformed might decide to stick with conventionally-produced foods, causing that market to stabilize?

Or do you feel that this article won’t affect the organic market either way?

There are only a few more days for people to enter the HGTV Green Home Giveway contest.

I’m putting myself in the shoes of the winner (why not - it could be me!) and started really think about what it would (will) be like to win.

So if you really win, what about the following:
1. If you don’t already, would you live in South Carolina?
2. Would you keep the house if you won it?
3. What’s more important: the house being Green or the location?
4. How happy will you be to win a HOUSE?

Leaving California for a new state (not to mention a new coast!) would be pretty unusual. So, I’m not sure I could do that.

But if given the chance to live in a beautiful home that is Green throughout (ours is not) might be too much to resist.

Call it a draw, but wait until later this month to see who wins.

Remember, enter once a day until Friday to qualify.

Looking to clear your clutter in the most eco-friendly way possible? This article on Shine presents 4 ways to do just that.

Here are their 4 tips:
1. Make some money: consign high-end clothes, sell collectibles on eBay, etc.
2. Have a place in your home… where you can place items to be donated
3. Have a swap party (”seasonal purge party”, anyone?)
4. Re-use your own stuff

While these are all fairly common, they’re not exactly as deep as you may find with Karen Kingston or Sarah Susanka. But what matters is that they are out there and part of the conversation.

There is definitely a shift in thinking, where being “green” - and all of it’s complications - is pervasive. What we may take for granted in California, may be new in other parts of the country. Which is why repetition of these ideas is always a good thing.

So, cheers to Shine and Yahoo for encouraging these eco-friendly clutter clearing tips.

I should note that Shine is a new part of Yahoo that is geared towards women. They describe the site as:

a smart, dynamic place for women to gather, get info and to connect with each other and the world around them.

This article was featured on the Yahoo homepage, which is how I even heard of Shine. While new, this looks to be a valuable place to keep revisiting.

image credit: 4×4jeepchick

Los Angeles hasn’t kept too high of a profile when it comes to green building. But late last month, a significant change is underway.

The city of Los Angeles has become the largest city in the nation to impose green building rules that would potentially cut millions of tons of pollution over the next decade.

The announcement was made on Earth Day.

According to the story on Inhabitat:

The law will require new commercial buildings and high-rise residential structures over 50,000 square feet to meet LEED standards, including drought-resistant landscaping, use of recycled materials, and energy efficient heating, cooling, and lighting. This makes LA the latest of 14 US cities that have required private developers to meet greener building practices. These legislative efforts were heralded by several groundbreaking reports released earlier in the month.

The mayor has also set a target:

The mayor has pledged to reduce the city’s carbon emissions 35% below 1990 levels by 2030, an effort that will also require a crackdown on the city’s coal-dependent municipal utility and a move toward electricity from renewable sources.

This is a fantastic move, and based on everything I’ve read on it, Los Angeles should be applauded.

Now that LA is moving more to Green, there is one big question:

Is the race on between San Francisco and Los Angeles: who will be the greenest city?