$100 Wind Turbine Brings Light to Villages Without Power

Engineers Malcolm Knapp and Heather Fleming of the San Francisco Chapter of Engineers without Borders helped design this $100 wind turbine. ( I also love her "club sandwiches, not seals" T) Wired reports that unlike the large-scale assemblies found in wind farms, the roughly two-foot-wide and three-foot-tall turbine has a vertical axis. McLean said that orientation worked better in the choppy conditions likely to meet the turbine out in the field, where it'll be bolted on to buildings, towers or even trees. It will be built in Guatemala, designed to be a cheap replacement for the kerosene lamps that are a fire and health risk. Read full from wired

Wohoo... EPA grants WI more clean buses

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 has awarded a $37,271 grant to the Manitowoc Public School District in Manitowoc, Wis., for a project to cut diesel emissions from the district's school buses... Read full EPA press release here:

China coming to U.S. for lower costs? Yep.

Chinese Firms Outsourcing to U.S.... yep our energy is that good.

A growing wave of Chinese entrepreneurs are expanding into the U.S. to build factories, buy companies and invest in U.S. business and real estate.

The are stunned on how U.S. costs compare with those in China.

Liu Keli  -  "was surprised, the finical gap's not as large as I thought."

Land is less than one-fourth what it would cost to buy the same amount of land in China and U.S. electricity rates are about 75% lower, and Liu doesn't have to put up with frequent blackouts.

About the only major thing that's more expensive is labor. Liu is looking to offer $12 to $13 an hour there, versus about $2 an hour in China, not including room and board. But Liu expects to offset some of the higher labor costs with a payroll tax credit of $1,500 per employee from South Carolina.

Read full via: Los Angeles Times

Why does everyone want a "carbon market"

The carbon market has very little to do with reducing global emissions. Thus if we actually reduce the global carbon footprint in the next decade the market will collapse on itself... this is NOT the intention.

What is the real intention? to make a lot of cash...

The "carbon market" is designed to capitalize on the trade of carbon emissions from industrialized nations to inefficient power derived from third world natural resources.

Knowing that third world sources making those emissions are 30-50% LESS efficient than the industrialized nations... thus, producing 30-50% more emissions during the trade.

While there is nothing "clean" about it, there is certainly a whole lot of GREEN behind it ;-)

Reuters: The global carbon market more than doubled in value in 2007 to $64 billion, but that masked slow growth in actual greenhouse gas emissions cuts ...Link

EPA - We have our fill of pills!

From Karen Reshkin EPA Region 5's Office of Public Affairs.

Results are starting to come in from the EPA Earth Day Challenges...

Ten of the collection events have together collected 2,184,000 pills which were turned in for safe disposal -- more than double the challenge goal. EPA also expects to far exceed its goal for e-waste based on 216,000 pounds of electronics collected at six events.

If you didn't make it to one of these events, you can still help make a difference. Earth 911 keeps an ongoing database of recycling and collection events all across the US. (I searched on "medicine" and "Chicago, IL" to find places which accept unwanted medicines year round.) It's still hard to find medication collections (learn why), but it's an issue that's beginning to get more attention.

Solution to Our Inefficient Cars = Poulsen Hybrid

..the physics of cars and why are they so inefficient is  your car's using a 100 times its weight in ancient plants everyday and yet only 0.3% of that energy ends up moving the driver.

Of all the fuel energy you put into the car, 87% (seven eighths of it) never gets to the wheel. It's lost first in the engine, driveline, idling and accessories.

Of the 1/8^th of fuel energy that does reach the wheels, half of that either heats the air that the car pushes aside or heats the tires and roads. Only the last 6% of the fuel energy actually accelerates the car and then heats the brakes when you stop.

The Solution?
Poulsen Hybrid essentially adds a couple of rear wheel hub motors which can be installed in any conventional car to convert it into a plug-in hybrid, increasing its mileage significantly. So you get 2 hub motors, two controllers along with batteries and a charger which go in the trunk -- all for $3300. Give it a couple of hours and you car's now a plug-in electric hybrid!

I think it's an absolutely brilliant concept. Totally inexpensive, efficient, simple and it doesn't even mean getting a new car. If it works as promised, it should sell in huge numbers - many times more than any of the fancy cars in Popular Mechanics list. Converting an existing internal combustion engine car into a plug-in electric to get mileage in the range of 100 MPG without any substantial mechanical changes to the car and at such low cost is an unbeatable proposition.

More reasons to like the Alpha-Core/ Poulsen Hybrid solution- Retrofitting existing cars to make them more efficient is the most effective and sustainable way of tackling auto emissions. There are well over 600 million cars in the world. Any new new alternative automotive solution will take several decades to become mainstream provided it is cost effective and is available worldwide. While we need new technologies, the greatest impact will come from a technology that can improve the existing one running inside each of those 600 million cars.

UPDATE 7-May-08: AutoblogGreen makes amend, writes about Poulsen Hybrid. Links to this post. Most people commenting are overwhelmingly positive about this.

Content from: orangehues

NY Times image depicts Consumer's Spending

Each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics gathers 84,000 prices in about 200 categories — like gasoline, bananas, dresses and garbage collection — to form the Consumer Price Index, one measure of inflation.

Each shape in this picture represents how much the average American spends in different categories. Larger shapes make up a larger part of spending.

Great depiction linked here

Not the kind of press EPA needs

Driving EPA further into politics moves us all further away from protection...

This is just one of the many posts and substantial news coverage on EPA Region V (Chicago) and Dow Chemical company this week.

Among the minimum actions that are required:

* A Congressional probe into corrupt influence behind the sacking of Regional Administrator Mary Gade;
* Appointment of an independent counsel to determine whether ethics or other laws have been violated;
* A review by EPA's inspector General;
* Most importantly, swift action to compel dioxin cleanup by Dow Chemical of a major Great Lakes watershed it has fouled at the expense of public health and the environment for decades.

Read Full By David Dempsey

Oil Companies Settle MTBE Groundwater Suit - Report

NEW YORK - A dozen oil companies agreed to pay $423 million in cash plus clean-up costs to settle litigation over groundwater contamination from the gasoline additive, MTBE, lawyers representing public water utilities and public agencies in 17 states, told Reuters.

 

The settlement, filed in the US District Court in Manhattan, involves BP America Inc, Chevron Corp, ConocoPhillips, Shell Oil Co, Marathon Oil Corp, Venezuela's Citgo Petroleum Corp, Sunoco Inc and Valero Energy Corp, the newspaper said.

 

"The one big holdout was ExxonMobil Corp," said Robert Gordon, of Weitz and Luxenberg, one of the three lead lawyers for the plaintiffs.

 

"The most important thing here is not the money, "but that there is going to be treatment of the wells and the affected areas guaranteed for the next 30 years," Gordon said.

 

MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, was added to gasoline for some three decades to curb smog emissions.

 

Source: Reuters

ETHANOL (”moonshine”, “white lightnin’”) is NOT BIODIESEL

From OILGAE TEST DRIVE: Algae Power Hits the Road

....DO NOT CONFUSE ETHANOL ("moonshine", "white lightnin'") with BIODIESEL (derived from fatty oils, mainly from plants like soybeans, mustard seed, palm oil, waste cooking oil from restaurants, and about 115 other species of plants, but also animal fats). Rudolf Diesel invented his engine in the late 19th century, and perfected in the early 20th century, to run on peanut oil. So-called "diesel" fuel, derived from third level fractionation of petroleum, was a later invention of Standard Oil et al, after Diesel mysteriously died in transit across the English Channel, from France, on the eve of WWI. Biodiesel is derived from a much more energy efficient process than ethanol, and can be used DIRECTLY in diesel buses, trucks, trains and ships without having to modify the diesel engines. Over 40% of the passenger cars in Europe are more efficient diesel, and also has a more active biodiesel retail industry.

The problems we all face with the rapid growth of the biofuels industry, driven by the multinationals like ADM and Cargill, is that they are willing to sacrifice large tracts of viable food farmland, rainforest and other habitat, releasing additional CO2 into the atmosphere with burnoffs, and heavy use of petroleum-based fertilizers, for the sake of short-term speculative profit. This is NOT sustainable. Our co-op and other affiliated organizations are involved in the Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance, to promote the development of so-called second-tier biofuels, such as Solazyme's cellulosic sugar-based, intensive algae farming, which are far less dependent on food-based sources of oil and sugar, and much more energy-balanced. Google any of these names to get more info. Also check out the National Biodiesel Board website, http://www.nbb.org


Bio-diesel and synthetic-diesel are much better choices - however for the immediate future because a majority of the passenger cars, commercial trucks, construction equipment and military vehicles run on diesel and could run on bio/syn-diesel with no modifications (and run better and longer due to their superior lubrication over petroleum based diesel).

Algae based diesel could be a big player if a plan could be executed that utilized 3 existing factors that are currently problems for us:
1. The extreme amount of runoff from farms going down the Mississippi river creates large growths of algae in the Gulf of Mexico on an annual basis
2. Large amounts of trash are dumped annually into the ocean because we don’t have enough landfills for the amount of trash we produce
3. The commercial fishing industry is in decline due to more dead zones reducing catches.

Does anyone else see a possible solution through the use of open water algae farms?

We could utilize the run off that creates dead zones in the gulf to help solve our energy needs and restore some fishing industries. Where does the trash come in? Certain algae love to eat our trash. You just have to find one that does makes a good bio diesel too!

Offshore bio-diesel algae farms could be initiated with very little startup cost. Production would also help revitalize the gulf coast which already has the infrastructure in place for oil production and processing. As I recall, don’t they have a history of sugar production down there too? Cane based alcohol would be better than paying not to grow sugar (ref: tariffs and world sugar production).

Seems like the U.S. has been paying attention to the wrong gulf region of this planet.

Clean Water? Have Your Well Tested to be Sure

During National Drinking Water Week, EPA reminds private well owners that having safe drinking water means having regular water checkups. If you depend on a well for your water supply, consider having it tested as part of spring cleaning this year.

 

Since drinking water obtained from private wells is not regulated under federal law, private wells are often not regularly sampled for contaminants, unless individual well owners choose to do so. Even testing conducted during the sale of a home may not include all contaminants of concern for private wells.

 

Private wells may contain bacteria, nitrates, radon, arsenic or other pollutants. Long-term exposure to high levels of contaminants, like arsenic and radon, may increase cancer and other health risks. High nitrate levels can have serious health impacts on young infants. If tests show that levels of these contaminants exceed guidelines, homeowners should consider treating their well water.

 

While testing is critical to check for contamination, homeowners, businesses and local governments can prevent well water from becoming contaminated in the first place. Businesses and homeowners should take extra care when they dispose of pesticides, cleaning fluids, fertilizers, paints, motor oils and gasoline. Homeowners using septic systems should also avoid dumping chemicals into toilets or down the drain, and pump out their systems on a regular basis to keep them running properly.

 

If you need to get better informed, EPA has a lot of good information on the Web here

$7.5 Million for Advanced Water Power Technologies

DOE announced on May 5 that it will make up to $7.5 million available to U.S. industries and universities to support the research and development of advanced water power systems, including systems that draw on free-flowing water; ocean waves, tides, or currents; and other water-based resources. Read full announcement here

Dow, Proctor & Gamble in Great Lakes

When polluters come crying to government, the rest of us suffer.
In fact, this is no more than special pleading by one major manufacturer, Proctor & Gamble, which controls well over half the detergent market through Cascade. A number of smaller companies, notably Colgate-Palmolive, have managed to make and market phosphate-free detergents. Why should Proctor &; Gamble get to set Maryland's environmental agenda based on its own ease and convenience?  Read more By David Dempsey

Non-Stick Chemical Found in Breast Milk

"C8 and related chemicals used in nonstick pans and stain-resistant fabrics have been found in human breast milk, according to the first major U.S. study to examine breast-feeding as a possible exposure route. Perfluorinated compounds, or PFCs, were found in all of the 45 human breast milk samples tested in the new study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology. Toxicologist Kathleen Arcaro of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and other researchers tested the milk as part of Arcaro's ongoing investigation of links between environmental exposures and breast cancer. 'While nursing does not expose infants to a dose that exceeds recommended limits, breast milk should be considered as an additional source of PFCs when determining a child's total exposure,' Arcaro said in a news release issued by her university. ... Around the world, researchers are finding that people have C8 and other PFCs in their blood in low levels. Evidence is mounting about the chemical's dangerous effects, but U.S. regulators have not set a federal standard for emissions or human exposure." Ken Ward Jr. reports for the Charleston Gazette May 4, 2008.

FACT: 77 percent of mothers in the US breastfeed their newborn babies, according to a survey results from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC). This is up from 60 percent in 1994. “The report shows that the initiation of breast-feeding is at an all-time high,” said Karen Hunter of the CDC.Breastfeeding rates remain unchanged for children six months of age. According to the New York Times:

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend that mothers breast-feed exclusively for the first six months of their child’s life and continue breast-feeding with baby food as a supplement until at least the child’s first birthday.

Al Gore's $638 Million capitalizing on hysteria...

Generation Investment Management has closed $638Million in initial funding for its Climate Solutions Fund. The company is chaired by former vice president Al Gore and serves to be a leader in investing in biofuels and biomass; and the carbon trading markets. According to the Financial Times:

Although a chorus of cynics can be heard claiming this is Gore's way of capitalizing on hysteria, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that investing in clean energy and carbon trading schemes is a good idea with the payoff Gore is getting...

Now will his venture capitalists see any actual long term return on the investment (ROI) or just derail funding from solid ROI investments in conservation and U.S. efficiency?

 

 

What IS killing the bee's...

With 100's of theory's... the reality is that there a few common facts that disorientate BEE colonies. And it has been a fact by bee keepers for decades that higher levels of air pollution and pesticides have the highest impact on hive disruption.

Timothy H. Tear, "We know that ozone levels continue to be high and go well beyond EPA standards for public health," Tear said. "What's been pretty consistent is the more we look at air pollution's impacts on natural resources, the more we find those impacts to be."

Why we need to spend millions in further studies is very confusing... Bees are just the Canaries

 

 

 

"Congress Is Ready To Get The Lead Out of Kids' Toys"

"It started with Jarnell Brown, a 4-year-old Minneapolis boy who died two years ago after swallowing a heart-shaped charm made almost entirely of lead. Then came last year's 'summer of recalls.' By December, government regulators in near crisis mode had recalled almost 30 million toys, many of them because of lead. And the problem keeps flaring up. Last week, U.S. officials recalled 84,000 children's storage bins from Taiwan because the surface paint has high levels of lead. Now Congress is poised to make the first major overhaul of consumer product safety laws in a generation -- including a virtual ban on lead in toys, something never tried before. One of the key players in the coming weeks' negotiations will be Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who was a Senate candidate when Brown died. She has made toy safety the signature issue of her first year in Washington, introducing the lead ban and other measures that make it easier to identify hazardous products."

 Kevin Diaz reports for the Minneapolis Star Tribune May 3, 2008.

$25 million on GreenWashing Oil Sands

Oilsands never 'green' - From Montreal Gazette

 

Tell the Alberta premier to get his head out of the oil sands. But, astonishingly, his government is spending $25 million on a brazen PR stunt designed to delude the world into believing the oil sands are "green."

 

Stelmach's agent in Washington, deputy premier Ron Stevens, was attempting to persuade the U.S. government to leave Alberta off a list of countries producing "dirty oil," from which imports would be banned.

 

U.S. advocacy group National Resource Defence Council certainly didn't. Spokeswoman Liz Barratt-Brown said calling the oil sands sustainable was  "ludicrous," given the "enormous amounts of global warming and toxic pollution" they create. OK, so they're a bunch of sad-sack lefties.

 

But listen to Clement Bowman, a Canadian pioneer of oil-sands development, who's just won the equivalent of a Nobel prize for his work on energy research.

 

Bowman wrote Prime Minister Stephen Harper, warning him that, until environmental issues are dealt with, the oil sands have "hit a wall."

 

Today, as an area the size of Florida is defaced, Lougheed pleads for a halt to further expansion until the extent of the damage is determined.

 

Bowman says that, given the money and the will, the oil sands could be made sustainable. But he sees no evidence of it happening...

Common pesticide driving away the BEE's

Bees are disappearing: Could a common lawn chemical be to blame - Yep

 

Bee's and now Birds are on the decline...

 

Two years ago beekeepers noticed an odd phenomenon: Like the vanishing Roanoke Colony of early Virginia, swarms of bees were disappearing without a trace. Hives were found empty of adults. Yet bee food (bee pollen and honey) and some "baby bees" were left behind.

 

Stunned at this abnormal behavior, which they dubbed "colony collapse disorder," researchers set out to find the cause. Theories still are being tested. Some are blaming global warming, others a proliferation of parasites; some are pointing the finger at viral diseases, others indict electromagnetic energy from cell phones.

 

Paul Tukey, the founding editor and publisher of People, Places & Plants magazine, has a different idea: He thinks a particular pesticide called "imidacloprid" may be the villain behind CCD. It's commonly found in lawn treatments aimed at eradicating grubs, aphids, whiteflies, and other pests. First patented in 1988, it has become more widely used during the last three years--the same period in which CCD appeared.

 

The theory is that imidacloprid (commonly called Merit) doesn't kill bees directly; it disorients them so they can't find their way back to the hive. The effect is the same.

 

The case of the disappearing bees is worth buzzing about: U.S. crops worth $15 to $20 billion a year are dependent on bees for pollination. Peaches, soybeans, blackberries, raspberries, cranberries, watermelon the list goes on, and includes virtually the entire California almond crop, worth $1.5 billion. These, moreover, are just the effects on commercial growers: Family gardens are also at risk.

 

What to do? Clearly, further research is necessary to determine the cause of CCD. Meanwhile, there is enough concern about imidacloprid that some large growers, including the nation's largest producer of wild blueberries, are shunning it. Homeowners can, too, by checking labels on lawn-care products and, to play it doubly safe, using organic methods to control pests.

 

The fragile balance of nature is often upset by the unintended consequences of man's intervention. The vanishing of birds and bees is yet another example. Is an emerald-green lawn worth the risk?

 

VIA - Free Lance-Star

EPA to cap petroleum refineries emissions

Petroleum Refineries to Take Steps to Reduce Air Pollution

 

EPA is requiring petroleum refineries to reduce air pollution emissions from new, modified, or reconstructed process units by using updated performance standards. These standards call for refineries to add technology controls shown to reduce emissions. The standards also include options for controlling emissions through work practices.

 

The agency expects over the next five years, that the final standards for new process units will reduce the combined emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides from 30 petroleum refineries by nearly 31,000 tons per year. The cost savings from energy recovery associated with these amendments is estimated to be about $7 million per year.

 

More information is available at:  epa.gov

DOT Proposes Annual 4.5% Increase in Fuel Efficiency

Fuel efficiency standards for both passenger vehicles and light trucks would increase by 4.5 percent per year over the five-year period ending in 2015 – a 25 percent total improvement that exceeds the 3.3 percent baseline proposed by Congress last year – under a new proposal announced April 22 by U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters.

 

"This proposal is historically ambitious, yet achievable," Peters said. "It will help us all breathe a little easier by reducing tailpipe emissions, cutting fuel consumption, and making driving a little more affordable."

 

For passenger cars, the proposal would increase fuel economy from the current 27.5 miles per gallon to 35.7 miles per gallon by 2015. For light trucks, the proposal calls for increases from 23.5 miles per gallon in 2010 to 28.6 miles per gallon in 2015.

 

All told, the proposal will save nearly 55 billion gallons of fuel and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions estimated at 521 million metric tons. The plan will save America's drivers over $100 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicles covered by the rule, Peters said.

 

Source:  eponline

VW' s 7-seater mini-van 38 mpg

Yep and a Dodge Grand Caravan, diesel with about 40mpg all sold in the U.K. since 02.

 

It is time America embraces the 20-30% energy savings of clean diesels.

 

Read about VW here

U.S. Global Warming Emission Conspiracy ?

The data no one wants to include in the news... U.S. is leading the world in emission reductions

In 2006, the U.S. economy expanded at the real and robust rate of 2.9 per cent – a decent rate of growth for any advanced economy. Economic growth necessarily requires more consumption of energy, right? Economic growth necessarily requires more greenhouse gas emissions, right?

Here's a quick Q&A to test these environmental assumptions.

Question: By what percentage did U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increase in 2006? minus 1.5 per cent.

In 2006, GHG emissions in the U.S. did not increase, notwithstanding either the revved-up economy or the environmental reputation of Republican President George W. Bush. Rather, they decreased in absolute terms – for the first time ever in the U.S. in a growth-year economy.

An independent statistical agency in the U.S. Energy Department, the EIA reports total American GHG emissions in 2006 , down 105.8 MMT.

This is a singular U.S. achievement, demonstrating that technological advances, voluntary actions by millions of people and higher oil prices can quickly drive decisive environmental improvements. The U.S. economy has successfully squeezed more and more production from a dollar's worth of energy for years. Now, it has squeezed more production still – from less than a dollar's worth of energy. Indeed, EIA reports that U.S. "greenhouse gas intensity" – a measure of greenhouse gases produced per million dollars of gross domestic product – fell by a whopping 4.2 per cent in 2005, the largest annual decrease ever.

Although Mr. Bush is widely regarded as indifferent to environmental causes, he set the U.S. on this particular cause – more energy bang for the buck – in 2002, well before climate change had hit its current, frenzied intensity. Within the decade, Mr. Bush presciently said, the U.S. would reduce GHG intensity by 18 per cent, meaning that the U.S. would become one-fifth more energy efficient within 10 years. From 2002 through 2005, U.S. emissions intensity has declined 2.5 per cent a year. With the extraordinary decline in 2006, the U.S. has already achieved five-ninths of its goal and could fully achieve it two years early.

In 2006, the EIA says, the U.S. reduced its cumulative increase in GHG emissions since 1990 to 15.1 per cent from 16.8 per cent. The original and controversial Kyoto target for developed economies was a reduction in emissions to the 1990 level. Were the American achievements of 2006 to persist, the U.S. could ironically meet the Kyoto objective by 2011 – even though the country never ratified the Kyoto Protocol and never embraced its objectives. Environment Canada, incidentally, reports that Canadian emissions, at the end of 2005 (the most recent year available), exceeded Kyoto objectives by 32.7 per cent.

Read more from the globe

EMFPHOBIA: Hybrids and Cellphone EMF CAUSE CANCER?

REMEMBER WHEN POWER LINES CAUSED CANCER?

EMF stopped causing cancer in 1997, but no one bothered to tell Jim  Motavalli, who wrote an Automobile column in the Sunday New York Times about the risks of EMF in hybrids.  According to Motavalli the National Cancer Institute studied the cancer risks associated with electromagnetic fields.  And so it did - but it couldn't find any.  You might think Motavalli would at least check the Archives of the New York Times.  On July 3, 1997, the day the massive four-year NCI study of power lines and cancer appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, Gina Kolata reported in the Times that the study was unambiguous and found no health effects associated with electromagnetic fields.  An editorial in the same issue of the Journal put it in perspective: "Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into studies that never had much promise of finding a way to prevent the tragedy of cancer in children.  It is time to stop wasting our research resources."  It all began in 1979 when Nancy Wertheimer, an unemployed epidemiologist, and her friend Ed Leeper, drove around Denver looking for common environmental factors in the homes of childhood victims of leukemia.  It practically jumped out at them - every home had electricity.  Their study was so flawed it would have been laughed off but for Paul Brodeur, a scientifically-ignorant writer for The New Yorker.  He wrote a series of terrifying articles about power lines and cancer that were collected in a 1989 book, Currents of Death.

 

From  bobpark (Thanks Bob)

Glutten, of environmental harm of GREEN greed...

"Record greenwashing is leaving reluctant customers with an excuse to do nothing..."

If I had a nickel for every time I heard "media" and Hollywood cast ethanol and hydrogen as the fuels to save us for the last three years, it would still not be enough to buy the "carbon offsets" to save their souls for the consequences it has created...

The guardian points out the how  the obvious media GREEN blitz for cash has led to lack of consumer confidence in environmental issues and increased complaints on corporate "GreenGreed"  (linked here)

The annual report from the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) shows that in 2007, complaints about environmental claims, compared with the year before are more than fourfold increase.

The ASA has already censured several high-profile companies including Suzuki, Shell, Ryanair and Toyota for the practice of "greenwash" – where companies are found to have misled consumers on their environmental practices as a business or of the particular benefits of a product or service.

Futerra says that increasing incidences of greenwash are a problem for both consumers and those businesses with genuine environmental aspirations. Its guide says that if it is easy for businesses to make false or misleading environmental claims and benefit from sales to "green consumers" then there are fewer incentives for businesses to make real steps to improve their environmental performance.

Solitaire Townsend, chief executive of Futerra, said: "Greenwash isn't simply annoying; it's dangerous. Well meaning people who want to buy 'green' are getting confused and disheartened. During a time of economic belt-tightening if green products and services are to survive; then people have to trust them."

Concerns were also expressed that "greenwash can provide confused or reluctant customers with an excuse to do nothing".
 

Futerra's 10 signs of Greenwash
1. Fluffy language - Words or terms with no clear meaning, e.g. "ecofriendly".
2. Green products v dirty company  - Such as efficient light bulbs made in a factory which pollutes rivers.
3. Suggestive pictures - Green images that indicate an (unjustified) green impact eg flowers blooming from exhaust pipes.
4. Irrelevant claims - Emphasising one tiny green attribute when everything else is "ungreen".
5. Best in a bad class? - Declaring you are slightly greener than the rest, even if the rest are pretty terrible.
6. When it's just not credible - "Ecofriendly" cigarettes anyone? "Greening" a dangerous product doesn't make it safe.
7. Gobbledygook - Jargon and information that only a scientist could check or understand.
8. Imaginary friends - A "label" that looks like third party endorsement ... except it is made up by the company itself.
9. No proof  - It could be right, but where's the evidence?
10. Outright lying - Totally fabricated claims or data.

 

The best of the week was "The Ultimate Greenwashing: Barbie Goes Green" press release about a "green" Mattel collection of accessories called Barbie B. Mattel's new "playful and on-trend" collection of hats and bags for young girls released to pip out doll "just in time to celebrate Earth Day in style."

 

Newly proposed energy legislation - IMPORTANT read

We threw thousands of legislative hours and millions of our tax dollars at the "reactive" quick fix  Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Now we are geared up to do it again. I am not sure any armchair American has a general understanding of the massive economic and social impacts of these ACT's. It is vital to our future that each and every American is educated on these proposals. If the Billions throw at "legislative process" debating went towards actual American energy investments, we would not be on this downward spiral. 

 

The newly proposed Domestic Energy Production Act of 2008 claims;  "Rather than raise taxes, block production, increase regulations, and call for investigations"

Senate Republicans to introduce legislation stating; "to address the nation's current energy crunch by increasing access to domestic supplies, expand the nation's refinery capacity, and promote market-based alternatives for our energy future."

Summary:

• Increasing Domestic Refining Capacity "... bring down the price of gas at the pump by ending the outsourcing of U.S. refining capacity and U.S. jobs."
• Increasing Domestic Energy Exploration "Increasing domestic energy exploration... on 85 percent of America's offshore waters.", "The Domestic Energy Production Act of 2008 allows for environmentally sensible drilling in ANWR.  It also allows individual States to decide if drilling should be permitted in their offshore waters."
• Section 526 Repeal  " the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which prohibits federal agencies from contracting to procure nonconventional, or alternative, fuels that emit higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than 'conventional petroleum sources.'  that could limit the diversity and supply of fuel for our nation's Air Force and other military branches... forced to obtain a greater percentage of petroleum from unstable regions of the world, endangering our ability to quickly and economically obtain much-needed fuel to conduct operations vital to the defense of our nation.
• Repeal Ethanol Mandate "take swift and meaningful action to help mitigate the damaging impact of our nation's irresponsible biofuels mandate... failure of last year's Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Read full here at Senate.gov

 

 

---

Haase -  If we are calling a ONE YEAR OLD,  legislative act a "huge failure", we need to take a long hard look into why.  

 

We are witnessing true degradation of environmental protection and conservation through media manipulation of our legislation.  Undermining years of organized economic and environmental planning that has made the U.S. the world environmental leader.

 

- Hurry up and do something or "polar bears get it"... These "do it now or we'll sue" media campaigns continue force legislators to react to a "headline created" pandemic crisis.

 

 

FACT: No one can argue the data, the U.S. has the cleanest, water, air land in conjunction with the population continuing to increase WHILE we are decreasing, emissions and energy use (based on our population and GDP).

 

American's NEED to focus on communicating long term strategies of protecting jobs, energy and the environment... not short sighted viral "quick fixes" advertised by the popular medias shareholders agendas.  

 

aluminum oxide particles to improve fuel efficiency

Firing Up The Tank With Nanoparticles

In an attempt to make liquid fuels more energy efficient, scientists have found that adding aluminum or aluminum oxide nanoparticles to diesel fuel improves its ignition properties

Arizona State University mechanical engineer Patrick E. Phelan and coworkers found that diesel fuel containing 0.1% aluminum or aluminum oxide nanoparticles ignites more readily at lower temperatures than pure diesel. The researchers suspect that adding nanoparticles to diesel improves the fuel's radiative properties and its heat- and mass-transfer capabilities.

The nanoparticles increase the probability that a single drop of the fuel will ignite at just above 700°C. The probability increases from about 15% for pure diesel to between 50 and 60% for nanoparticle-enriched diesel.  Envirox, a cerium oxide-based catalyst nanoparticle that's reported to boost fuel efficiency, is already on the market from nanomaterials firm Oxonica.

Study link here: (Nano Lett., DOI: 10.1021/nl080277d).

QUOTE: on BP & SHELL backing off GREEN energy

Quote summarizes the actions of both SHELL & BP backing off billions in "GREEN" energy projects:

"Those who flee temptation generally leave a forwarding address." - Lane Olinghouse

DOE to fund ~ deep burn ~ reactor design

Two reactor R&D efforts are linked in a single grant funding opportunity

 

DOE has linked nuclear reactor R&D design work for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant and GNEP objectives to the the concept of nuclear fuel "Deep-Burn" in which plutonium and higher transuranics recycled from spent nuclear fuel are destroyed. GNEP and NGNP have been more or less until now traveling down separate R&D paths. Now with this new $7.3 million grant, their paths and fates may be intertwined.

 

"The Deep-Burn concept is particularly attractive because it employs the reactor design that is used for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant program, with the potential for highly efficient electricity and process heat production," Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said. "We are eager to see how this concept can add to the mix of advanced nuclear technologies."

 

The transuranic elements are the hottest and most radiotoxic chemical elements in used nuclear fuel that require disposal in a waste repository. In Deep-Burn, the transuranics from used light water reactor fuel are recycled into coated-particle fuel and "burned" in a VHTR while producing energy in the form of process heat and electricity. The term "Deep-Burn" is used because of the VHTR's ability to reach very high fuel burnups (up to 65 percent of initial fuel), resulting in very efficient use of the fuel and a high degree of destruction of the transuranics.

 

Source~ djysrv

Methane to power vehicles, not pollute air

Waste Management, will spend $15 million for 300 trucks to run on landfill gas (a lot to spend on a big pile of ....)

A system designed and installed by German engineering company Linde will purify the gas and chill it to 260 degrees below zero, cold enough for the gas to turn into a liquid. Waste Management will use the liquefied natural gas in its own, specially outfitted trucks. The company also may try to sell it.

Landfill gas by itself won't replace oil, he said. "It's going to be more on the niche side," Eckhardt said. "It's not going to be the fuel for the majority of our vehicles. But we think the world will turn into a multifuel world."

Not all environmentalists agree that landfill LNG qualifies as green. The rotting food and other organic matter producing the methane deep within the landfill should be composted, they say, rather than dumped.

"Certainly, capturing landfill methane is preferable to flaring it," said Craig Noble, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council. But "it's preferable to avoid the production of that methane in the first place, by avoiding putting all that organic matter in the landfill."

Read more from sfgate

 

Haase -  $15 million in a organic matter separation program would appear to be a better return on investment...

E-85 reduces Mileage 25% , according to AAA...

AAA now calculates a price for E-85 to adjust for its energy content. The national average pump price for the fuel on Thursday was $2.91 per gallon; regular gasoline was $3.56. But adjusted for its energy content, the price for E-85 jumps to $3.83, or 27 cents more than regular.

E-85 blend gasoline, with 85% ethanol gets much worse mileage. But vehicles need some fairly special minor special equipment to be able to operate with it. General Motors is betting heavily on "flex fuel" vehicles to sustain its green street cred. But now, with the rise in price for corn and other commodities, even with federal subsidies, it is turning out that fuel costs rise when motorists purchase both ethanol blends.

Aside from all the other little problems associated with ethanol production, gasoline blends using ethanol actually cost motorists more, even when the blend is cheaper per gallon.

Over the course of a year, that amounts to an extra 300 gallons of E-85 to go the same distance as when using conventional gas. That means an average household, when the total cost of conventional gas and E-85 are compared, would spend nearly $100 more per year for E-85.

The Kansas City Star explains:

FEDS ISSUE RULE ON RAILROAD TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

After years of prodding and contentious discussions about hazardous materials carried by railroads through populous areas, the US Department of Transportation's Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has announced an interim final rule aimed at reducing potential threats. Railcars carry hazmat through many US communities and quite possibly yours.

The rule may lead to safer railroad transport of dangerous chemicals such as ammonia, chlorine, radioactive materials, and other explosive, corrosive, and poisonous substances. But many critics, including the railroads, say the rule is tepid at best.

The rule, announced April 16, 2008, and intended to address threats from both terrorists and accidents, requires railroad carriers to begin no later than July 1, 2008, to collect data on hazardous shipments and to assess safety and security risks along pertinent routes. They would then need to consider alternative routes. The initial data collection, analysis, and route assessment process is supposed to be completed by Sept. 1, 2009. Along with potential effects on high-population areas, the railroads are supposed to consider impacts on environmentally sensitive and significant areas.

• FRA press release;interim final rule (HM232 IFR Rail Routing).

Shell game on largest windfarm

Winds of change: Shell ditches renewable stake amid fears of a retreat to carbons    

The future of the world's largest offshore wind farm and a symbol of Britain's renewable energy future was thrown into doubt last night after it emerged that Shell was backing out of the project and indicated it would prefer to invest in more lucrative oil schemes.

 

Shell said the decision to sell its 33% stake was part of an "ongoing review of projects and investment choices" and was not part of any major rethink about renewables versus other oil and gas projects.

 

But environmentalists will see the decision to drop one of only two renewable schemes being worked on by Shell in Britain as a further sign that the company is retreating back to hydrocarbons at a time when the price of oil has risen to about $120 a barrel.

 

Shell, which earlier this week reported first quarter profits of $7bn, has been selling off much of its solar business while moving more into Canada's carbon-heavy tar sands. The Department for Business said last night that a number of successful offshore wind projects had seen changes of ownership in the past "and we would therefore anticipate that the project will be able to proceed".

 

"The current economics of the project are marginal at best - with rising steel prices, bottlenecks in turbine supply and competition from the rest of the world all moving against us."

 

No guarantees

· Plans for one of Europe's largest onshore wind farms in the Outer Hebrides were formally rejected after Scottish ministers

· BP and partners Southern and Scottish Energy dropped plans for an innovative carbon capture and storage (CCS) experiment at Peterhead, Scotland, blaming lack of government guarantees.

· BP considers floating or selling all or part of its renewable operations, which it believes are worth $7bn.

· Britain has some support programmes for renewables but spending has virtually stalled. It is one of the worst performing countries among its EU peers, producing only 2% of its energy from renewables and on current policies will miss the EU target of 15% by 2020.

 

Read full from guardian

Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict?

Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.

	Melting icebergs: The study predicts the IPCC's 0.3ºC temperature rise for the next decade may not happen

Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged.

This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that."

Read full via telegraph     

Haase- While this is one of dozens of viral articles just casts more doubts on the integrity climate science models... the comments make for the actual content of this piece. 

Green Chemistry and Chemicals Policy: Addressing Occupational Hazards

The field of green chemistry focuses on the design, manufacture and use of chemicals, products and processes to reduce or eliminate adverse effects on human health and ecosystems. Advancements in the field will support businesses and industries, as well as communities, workers and public agencies in their efforts to minimize the use of toxic chemicals in industrial processes and products. Advancements in green chemistry practices can also open new opportunities for green collar jobs, while at the same time ensuring that these new jobs are also safer jobs.

In addition to presenting the findings of our recent report to California EPA, Green Chemistry: Cornerstone to a Sustainable California (http://coeh.berkeley.edu/greenchemistry/briefing), we will address the following topics:

• Long-standing weaknesses in federal policy that have produced a flawed chemicals market in the U.S. and the consequences of these failed policies for the public, workers and the environment
• New European Union policies and efforts that are opening new possibilities for a new approach to chemicals policy in the U.S..
• Implications of green chemistry for occupational and environmental health

Part of the 2008 Safety WebExpo and Conference. Register here

 

Thanks for link Laura B.