Environment, Organics, Fair Trade & Recycling at Big Green Purse

My test-drive of the all-electric Nissan Leaf - On a scale of One to Ten, I give it a ...

Solid Nine. And that's saying a lot, considering that most cars would probably average only a 3 or a 4.

What's so great about the Leaf?

   I had a chance to find out earlier this week when I stopped by the Nissan Leaf road show as it passed through my county. The Leaf is Nissan's snazzy eco-friendly, all-electric car which means...it runs ONLY on electricity. It is NOT a gasoline-electric hybrid like the Ford Fusion or Chevy Volt, both of which I have also tested. The Leaf does not run on flex fuel or biodiesel or hydrogen or natural gas or anything other than electricity. It is truly gas-free.

Nissan had set up a big pavilion in the parking lot of the local mall to explain how the car works and then let people take it for a test drive. I was ready to be skeptical, since I drive a Prius (the original model, which I purchased in 2002), and love it. Instead, I fell in love with the Leaf. Here's why.

What the Heck is Fracking? And Why Don't You Want It Anywhere Near Your Water?

It sounds like it could be a new dance ("Let's do the frack!"). Or maybe it's a cool way to clean your house ("I really fracked my floor this week; it looks great now!")

But it's not. Fracking is short for "hydraulic fracturing," explains Chris Bolgiano in this Bay Journal article. "It involves drilling a hole a mile down, then thousands of feet horizontally, and pumping down millions of gallons of water laced with sand, salt and chemicals to crack the shale. Gas is forced up, along with roughly 25 percent of the contaminated wastewater, often hot with radioactivity."

Chris adds, "Fracking chemicals include formaldehyde, benzene, and others known to be carcinogenic at a few parts per million. Municipal plants can’t handle fracking wastewater, and it’s stored in open pits until trucked elsewhere. If enough fresh water can’t be sucked from streams on site, trucks haul it in.

It's Arbor Day. Can't you plant just one tree?

Sure you can.

Here's how:

1) Scope out possible planting locations. Trees need room for both branches and roots to spread out, so adequate space is key. So is good soil. Is yours loose and loamy, or dense and full of clay? And what about water? Is your spot high and dry or low and prone to flooding? The place you pick determines what tree will do best in your yard.

2) Choose your tree. Consider how big the tree will get and how fast it will grow, as well as its sun, soil and water requirements. Arbor Day's ‘right tree in the right place’ guide will help you find options that work for your "micro" climate. Consider species native to your area to help promote biodiversity.

If you live in a zone that is prone to drought, one of these trees could do well:

Silver maple
Chinese elm
Red oak
Purpleleaf plum

If your region gets a lot of moisture, one of these trees would be better:

River birch
Weeping willow
Austrian pine
 
3) Put your tree in the ground. How you plant a tree will depend on whether the roots are bare, wrapped in burlap, or potted in a container. Regardless, you'll need to dig a hole that's deeper and wider than the roots and add aged compost. After your tree is in the ground, clear grass at least three feet away from the trunk in every direction and mulch with wood chips or shredded bark to help the roots retain moisture and act as a buffer against temperature extremes. Water deeply upon planting, then regularly until the tree roots get established.

If you like to do things from scratch, you can plant a seed. Again, consider seeds that are native to your location. You might want to start the seed in a container so you can nurture it along over the couple of years it will take to grow into a seedling you can transplant. Fill a one- or -two gallon container with dirt that contains some rich organic matter, then make a hole about 1 inch deep, pop in the seed and cover with soil. It doesn’t get easier than that. 

 Once you plant a tree, keep it healthy so you can enjoy all the benefits it offers. It will attract birds and other wildlife, and provide shade to keep you cooler in summer. The leaves will help filter soot and dust, clearing the air, and convert carbon dioxide back into oxygen, reducing global warming and climate change. Plus research shoes that trees and the sound of their leaves tend to make people feel more relaxed. In fact, hospital patients recover more quickly when their room offers a view of trees! Having some trees to look out on from your porch or patio could have an equally calming effect on you.

RESOURCES:

If you don't have enough space in your own yard to accommodate a tree, plant one in your community. Work with your local public works department to choose a species or location.

Or support global tree planting campaigns, like the one Avon is running through its Hello Green Tomorrow program.

Some cities, like Pittsburgh, require residents to obtain a tree planting permit. You may want to check to see if this is the case where you live. 

For more information on tree planting and organizing community planting in your area visit American Forests  or  Sustainable Horticulture.

For gardening supplies, visit our store.

 

(Disclosure: I provide green living tips to Hello Green Tomorrow.)

(Thanks to research assistant Tracy Gaudet of Inspire Planning for research help.)

What's the Link between Population and Nuclear Energy?

Japan's nuclear disaster got me thinking about energy demand. Nuclear power advocates justify the decision to power plants with uranium as the best way to meet energy demands that are increasing because world population is growing. I couldn't help but wonder: why aren't we talking about reducing population as part of our global strategy to minimize dependence on power sources that pollute the environment and threaten people's health?

  I asked Bob Engelman, a Vice President at the Worldwatch Institute and one of the country's most respected experts on the link between population and the environment, to weigh in. Read his post, then let us know how you think population should figure into the calculations we're making about our energy future.

Always sensitive to talk about, the topic of population is hard to keep under wraps when news keeps reminding us that we live in a finite world. The costs of food and energy are rising despite a global economy in low gear. The likelihood of stemming the rise of the atmosphere’s greenhouse gas concentrations seems farther away than ever. And as Japan’s nuclear nightmare has reminded us yet again, there is no truly safe way to provide the energy that 6.9 billion people need to live decently. We’re pressing hard against limits set by the laws of physics and biology. The idea that we can easily trim our individual consumption to come into balance with nature—worthy as that effort is—looks increasingly naïve.

If people in the developed world slash their per capita greenhouse emissions by half, their effort could be counterbalanced by people in developing countries boosting theirs by just 11 percent. Global per capita emissions would still be inequitable—and unsustainably globe-warming.

Are there too many of us?

When I ponder how hard it will be to save the global climate, the oceans, forests, fisheries and non-human species, the answer seems obvious. But that answer is dangerous. To say we are too many is to imply some of us should go away fast, or at least that people should be made to have fewer children than they’d like.

The conversation looks easier if we start with some core values:

Top Ten Ways to Use Less Gas

Here we go again: gasoline prices are soaring close to $4.00 a gallon, and several of the countries that export oil to the U.S. are in such political turmoil, we can't be sure our supplies will continue. When, oh when, will we say, "Enough, Already!" and get serious about reducing our dependence on petroleum? 

The problem isn't just "foreign" oil. Using any kind of fossil fuel to meet our transportation needs is a losing proposition. Drilling for oil wrecks the planet, or have we already forgotten the Gulf Oil disaster? And burning oil generates climate-changing carbon dioxide and nasty particles that create asthma-inducing smog.

If you're in the market for a new car, take a look at electric options like the Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf. Gas-electric hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius or Ford Fusion merit consideration, too. Aim to buy the most fuel-efficient vehicle in your price range; this site maintained by the U.S. Department of Energy, will help you compare your choices.

But most of us can't just go out and buy a new set of wheels (unless they're on a bicycle). These ten tips offer the fastest, easiest ways you can save gas and money, no matter what kind of car you drive.

1. Drive smart - Avoid quick starts and stops, use cruise control on the highway, and don't idle.

2. Drive the speed limit - Remember - every 5 mph you drive above 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.10 per gallon for gas.

3. Drive less - This should be a no-brainer. Walk, bicycle, use a scooter or moped, combine trips, and telecommute to work.

One Way to Solve Climate Change: Cleaner Cookstoves

Can a simple stove help solve something as complex as climate change?

The United Nations Foundation and its partners at the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other institutions and organizations think so - at least, in part, which is why they've launched the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. This new partnership between government agencies, non-profit organizations, international aid groups and corporations aims to replace 100 million dirty stoves in developing countries with cleaner versions by 2020.

How can a lowly cookstove play such an important role in the climate debate?

REDUCE BLACK CARBON: The traditional cookstoves used in Asia, Africa and parts of Latin America rely on "biomass" like wood, cow dung, and coal. When any of these fuels is burned, they produce soot, also known as "black carbon." Biomass cooking accounts for 20 percent of the world’s emissions of black carbon, which some scientists believe is the second largest contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide.

Black carbon is so powerful because it is extremely effective at absorbing sunlight -- 1 million times more effective than carbon dioxide (CO2), in fact. Black carbon warms the atmosphere and creates a "greenhouse effect" by absorbing thermal infrared radiation from the ground and within clouds. Plus, because it directly heats surfaces on which it falls and reduces the amount of sunlight surfaces reflect back into the atmosphere, black carbon accelerates the melting of Arctic sea and land ice, glaciers, and seasonal snow cover.

Politics Shmolitics. You Can Still Make a Difference Based on How You Live and What You Buy.

My apologies to any of you who are elated with the results of yesterday's elections. And my condolences to any of you who think that the world has come to an end.

I'm in neither camp.

Though I still canvas, and phone bank, and vote for candidates I support, I've come to terms with the limitations our political system imposes on any candidate who is "lucky" enough to be elected. The reality is, we live in a polarized world run by people who are convinced that creating more polarization is more important than creating civil society or protecting the planet. Yes, it would be grand if our political leaders could collaborate and compromise, not in the name of power, but in the name of the people. But is that going to happen? As we have been reminded, ironically, ever since the last major "candidate for change" was elected two years ago -- and repudiated yesterday -- not any time soon.

Nevertheless, we are not helpless. If anything, yesterday's elections have reinforced how important it is for you and me to continue to make meaningful changes that offer direct and measurable benefits. I'm talking about turning off our own lights, or insulating our own homes, or buying products that save energy or contain no toxic chemicals, actions which may seem insignificant, but are not.

Can we make a difference, even if our elected officials don't?

We're Drinking the Same Water as Cleopatra. Is It as Clean?

Did you get a drink or throw in a load of laundry before starting to read this blog, written in honor of Blog Action Day? You probably could have, given the easy access most of us have to clean water.

One person of every three on the planet today isn't nearly so fortunate, according to the International Water Management Institute, given their lack of reliable access to fresh water. Even here in the U.S., the federal Government Accountability Office reported in 2003 that "water managers in thirty-six states anticipate water shortages locally, regionally, or statewide within the next ten years."

The rest of the world looks equally thirsty. By 2025, worries the Water Management Institute, all of Africa and the Middle East, and almost all of South and Central America and Asia, will either be running out of water or unable to afford its cost.

Dirty Water Kills Kids

"Clean" Coal and Nukes Should Not be Part of Obama's Energy Future - or Ours.

President Obama tackled energy in his State of the Union address on Wednesday night, but not in the way that many (including myself) had hoped.

Not only did Mr. Obama push for "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country," but he endorsed "opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development" and "continued investment in...clean coal technologies."

Does the President actually believe offshore oil drilling makes sense and that coal and nuclear can be safe, healthy and non-polluting? Or, as the country's uber politician, is he trying to maintain a balancing act in order to avoid alienating members of Congress who are beholden to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries for their campaign contributions?

If it's the latter, we should all remind the President of his campaign promise to rid the nation of "politics as usual." If it's the former, President Obama's science, environmental and health advisors need to make a beeline to the Oval Office so they can brief their boss on the industries he's touting. Why?

*  Clean coal and nuclear are myths, the products of aggressive industry public relations far more than reality.  Says analyst Richard Coniff, “Clean” is not a word that normally leaps to mind for a commodity some spoilsports associate with ... acid rain, black lung, lung cancer, asthma, mercury contamination, and, of course, global warming. Even if the carbon is captured and sequestered or impurities are "scrubbed" away, the pollutants that result from burning coal never truly disappear." 

* The very act of mining coal destroys the environment.  Mountaintop removal mining is decimating both the natural and human landscape of Appalachia, for example.

* Offshore oil drilling pollutes the oceans, threatens marine animals and plants, and trashes beaches and coastlines.

As for nuclear energy, I have a hard time imagining any scenario that can lump "radioactive waste" and "clean" in the same sentence. There's a reason no state wants to become a repository for the waste from nuclear power plants: they can't guarantee it won't eventually make its way into our air, water, and soil -- or be stolen by terrorists and converted into a bomb.

Now, to be fair, the president did strongly endorse renewable energy:

"We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century," he said, noting that "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

I applaud the Administration's commitment to "put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bill." Likewise, I support his decision to "invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power... and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America."

But rather than link these winning strategies to losers like coal, oil and nuclear, why not expand his vision for our future to include cost-effective and non-polluting options like mass transit, telecommuting, and stricter building standards to reduce energy demand from space heating and lighting? 

If we want an energy future we can believe in, that future cannot continue to depend on fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

President Obama said it best: "If we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, "something worthy to be remembered."

Why Climate Change Matters to Women

Solutions to climate change are usually discussed in terms of what's best for business or politics. But what about what's best for those who have the most to lose as climate change worsens: namely, women, especially those living in the poorest regions of the world?

A new report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) says that "women are disproportionately vulnerable to environmental changes." The statistics speak for themselves:

* Women and children are 14 times more likely to die than men during natural disasters (like heat waves, droughts, and hurricanes -- all of which are direct consequences of climate change).

* Hurricane Katrina, which struck New Orleans in 2005, predominantly affected African-American women, who were already the region's poorest, most disadvantaged community.

*  An estimated 87% of unmarried women and almost 100% of married women lost their livelihoods when a cyclone hit the Ayeyerwaddy Delta in Myanmar in 2008.

But notable "natural" disasters like these aren't the only ways climate change takes its toll on women's livesl. 

* Lifestyle: In areas of spreading drought, women must spend more time looking for firewood and trying to coax reluctant crops out of the ground - reducing the amount of time they can spend getting an education or taking care of their kids, and perhaps leading them to turn to early and undesirable marriages as a survival strategy.

* Health: Pregnant and lactating women are more vulnerable to diseases like malaria and dengue fever, both of which are extending their reach into new regions of the world as temperatures rise.

* Children: Kids are spending more time in medical clinics and hospitals as they suffer more cases of climate change-related asthma and poison ivy.

* Economics: Women find it harder to make ends meet as food prices rise to compensate for agricultural shortages due to drought or natural disaster. In developing countries, women may be forced to migrate if their lands become uninhabitable. Yet moving off their land to relocation camps or crowded urban areas makes many women homeless and unable to support themselves and their children.

* Security: While men are more likely to be killed or injured in fighting, women suffer greatly from other consequences of climate change-related conflict, including rape, beating, anxiety and depression. 

UNFPA's companion report, State of World Population 2009, warns, "Unless climate policies take people into account, they will fail to mitigate climate change or to shield vulnerable populations from the potentially disastrous impacts." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concurs. The agency issued a report the same day the Copenhagen climate talks began, saying a "thorough examination of the scientific evidence" led it to conclude that "greenhouse gases threaten the health and welfare of the American people," and, presumably, people of other nations as well.

Clearly, women must play a key role in identifying strategies that will help them adapt to the changing climate while very much focusing on solutions to bring climate change under control. Historically, women have not had a 'seat at the table' when such discussions have transpired. Hopefully, that changes this year. Not only is the president of the Copenhagen climate talks a woman - but the U.S. Delegation is populated with high ranking women from the Obama Administration, including Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, Energy "Czar" Carol Browner, and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.  I hope they will act together to keep women's interests front and center; by doing so, they'll keep all people front and center, as well. 

Meanwhile, don't wait for the climate talks to conclude to take action on your own.

* At home, do what you can to save energy and reduce greenhouse gases.  Here's how.

* Get more inspiration from the blogs posted about climate change for this month's Green Moms Carnival (coming December 9).

* And if you need any more arguments as to why you should care about climate change, here are ten.