When you see rolling hills of lush, green grass and trees, you probably think to yourself, “right on!” Well, don’t celebrate just yet because apparently, a greener Earth is actually a bad thing.

All this confusing research comes from a new study that was printed in the journal Nature Climate Change. The big conclusion of the study was, yes, the Earth has become significantly greener over the past 33 years, but that greening is because of all the carbon dioxide humans have been pumping into the air.

Scientists came to their conclusion by using “satellites to examine vegetation growth over time, assuming that the extra green is coming from leaves on plants and trees,” Grist reports.

“Using a computer model to estimate leaf growth, they find the extra greening is equivalent to adding about 18 million square kilometers of vegetated land to the globe, more than twice the area of the mainland U.S.”

So, this growth is happening because of the extra CO2 in the air. “Plants use sunlight for energy and convert CO2 (plus water) into sugar, which is stored for food,” Grist adds. “In a naive sense, more CO2 means more food for plants (this is called carbon dioxide fertilization), so there’s more growth.”

Now, technically, Earth greening isn’t so bad—plants love soaking up carbon. But the problem is, there’s no way all of Earth’s plants can soak up all the carbon we’re releasing. “All that extra plant growth can’t keep up with the 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide humans dump into the atmosphere every year,” Grist explains. Also, another problem: A lot of the world’s greening is happening in the arctic. Yeah, that’s not good.

So, let’s hope humans will actually find a way we all can agree on that will help us cut carbon emissions extensively so the planet can green naturally–and, you know, not die.

Related on EcoSalon

See the Great Barrier Reef Without Getting Wet [Video]

It Came from Outer Space

CIA Spends $630K On Geoengineering Climate Change, But Why?

Image of green forest via Shutterstock

The post Who Knew Living on a Greener Earth was a Problem? appeared first on EcoSalon.

We’ve been advised that we humans are destroying the earth with each step, each breath. But it really is hard to fathom exactly what that means. The numbers and premonitions aren’t tangible enough to make our greenhouse gases dilemma something everyone actively fights against on a daily basis.

How about if you knew how many trees you are destroying, and that you have the potential to re-plant, with each press of the “on” button or twist of the keys? The following list gives you a rough idea of how many trees your CO2 emissions equates to on a yearly basis.

The following calculations related to appliances are based on a 2,000-square-foot household and average use of them in a family. The car and motorist calculations were made by Arnia Doria, former Honda executive. Hopefully this list gives you a boosted environmental conscience and help the world cut down on its greenhouse gases.

Can’t plant yourself or want to find a way to get more involved? Organizations like Trees for the Future, Tree People, the Fruit Tree Planting Foundation and GROW can bring action to your intention.

So, the question stands:

How many trees do you need to plant to offset the CO2 emissions of a year’s average use of…

…an unleaded gasoline-fueled vehicle?

6 trees

…a 400cc motorcycle?

6 trees

…a television?

2 trees

…a washing machine?

2-3 trees

…a dryer?

20 trees

…a dishwasher?

10 trees

…a microwave?

4 trees

…an electric heater?

90 trees

…an air-conditioner?

55 trees

…a refrigerator?

21 trees

…a stove?

19 trees

Related on EcoSalon

A Guide to Foraging for Food: 20 Tasty Wild Plants

15 Ways to Decorate with Plants

8 Tips for Reducing Your Carbon Emissions

Photo Credit: woodleywonderworks

The post How Many Trees Should You Plant to Offset Greenhouse Gases? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Your carbon footprint is determined by the amount of carbon dioxide that you emit as you ago about your day-to-day activities. Even the most menial of tasks, like turning on the TV and driving a car, add to your carbon footprint.

Some more obvious contributors, such as air travel, are also a huge burden – air travel alone accounts for 3.5 percent of the human contribution to global warning – but it is more so the compounding effects of continuous simple, mindless tasks, such as turning on the lights in your house, that is making the difference. The following 8 ways to reduce your carbon footprint and save the world are just a few ways you can turn the difference in Mother Nature’s favor.

According to the most recent research, the earth’s glaciers are melting some  ten times faster than previously predicted and greenhouse gases are at the highest levels ever. This has caused species to increasingly go extinct, weather conditions to reach new extremities, sea levels to rise and the incidence of long-term droughts. In 2011, the US set a record with $14-billion worth of weather disasters.

According to the UN, each American is, on average, responsible for some 20 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. The world’s average under 10 tonnes per capita. Clearly, Americans can get by on fewer emissions, if the rest of the world serves as an example, and there are many ways to both reduce and offset output.

All it takes are a few simple tips to reduce your carbon overload. Start with these 8 tips:

1. Turn down your thermostat 2 degrees in the winter and up 2 degrees in the summer to save 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (and nearly $100 in heating and cooling bills).

2. Replace three bulbs in your house with energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs and save $60 a year. If every household in the U.S. did this, it would cut a trillion pounds of carbon dioxide from the earth’s atmosphere.

3. Unplug electronic devices, even when they are turned off, to save drawing power throughout the day – 1 watt per hour per plug.

4. Weatherize your home. Weatherization is essentially weather-proofing, or protecting the interior from outdoor elements. This can save hundreds of dollars and 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year.

5. Install double-pane windows to save 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year.

6. Buy local produce to reduce the demand for fruits and vegetables that require thousands of miles of transportation to get to your local supermarket.

7. Walk or bike for short distances. For longer distances, try to share a ride or purchase an energy-efficient car. Consider carpooling with a work buddy to work in the morning and home in the evening or with friends when going out to reduce fuel costs and emissions.

8. Offset your emissions by calculating your output at Go Zero, where you can then donate to plant the equivalent number of trees needed to compensate for your carbon footprint.

Photo Credit: Twicepix

The post 8 Tips for Reducing Your Carbon Footprint appeared first on EcoSalon.

A new infographic details municipal efforts to make cities more environmentally friendly.

With the definition of “green” still fuzzy when it comes to products, it’s even more difficult to measure the efforts of cities attempting to decrease their carbon footprint. What are water consumption policies like? How many cars on the road? What types of recycling programs and waste reduction efforts are underway? Are there any green building or alternative energy incentives?

HouseTrip set out to find out and measure the efforts of the world’s top “green” cities. Motivation for the project came from wanting to help draw attention to the importance of cutting global pollution generated by cities. With more than half of the world’s population now living in urban areas, cities are beginning to become leaders in environmentally responsible living. Data collected from the Siemens Green Cities Index and other sources provided the information to develop the infographic.

The inforgraphic shows which of these most progressive cities are doing what in the world of green: London, New York, Vancouver, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Stockholm. So what are these cities up to? Just 44 percent of New Yorkers own a car, for example. Compared with 95 percent of the rest of Americans, that’s a pretty huge difference. Head over to Amsterdam and you’ll see more bikes than people—one bike for every 0.73 people in fact. Copenhagen is among the cities embracing the benefits of green roofs, with legislation requiring green rooftops on all new buildings, which will add 5,000 square meters of vegetation. Vancouver and Copenhagen recycle 55 percent of all their waste. Vancouver generates 90 percent of its energy from renewable resources; Stockholm is at 60 percent.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Images: HouseTrip

The post How Green is Your City? appeared first on EcoSalon.

This is part two in our series on the Sharing Economy and how it can save money, time, and help you become more connected to your community. Part One explained how sharing services can help you save money. Today’s installment highlights some of the ways collaborative consumption can reduce waste and our impact on the planet.

We’re imprisoned in an ever growing mountain of our own waste. Streets are littered with the cast off shells of purchases we couldn’t live without. Massive houses suck up huge amounts of energy so that we can each have our own flat screen television, and enjoy 80 degree indoor temps in the middle of winter. We “need” a car for each member of the family, even though research shows that the average personal vehicle sits idle 22 hours a day. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a Texas-sized island of floating plastic debris, poisons the sea and kills marine life.

We’ve consumed our way into billions of dollars of debt, and buying more stuff, even very green stuff, isn’t the way out. Collaborative consumption allows us access to the things we need and want without assuming the burden (or carbon footprint) of ownership. When resources are shared, the total number of new things that must be produced goes down, taking related pollution and eventually landfill-bound waste, with it. Here are some more ways the sharing economy can help you achieve a zero-waste lifestyle.

1. Reduce

According to the EPA, the average passenger vehicle emits around 5.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Living without a car would be ideal, but it’s not a reality for those of us with big families or who live in sprawling suburbia. Car sharing, membership-based services that allow you rent a fleet car or your neighbor’s ride, can be a painless compromise. Studies have shown that car sharing reduces the number of cars on the road as well greenhouse gas emissions, all without forcing people into a car-free lifestyle. But if you are trying to go carless, bike sharing can ease the transition. The most popular urban bike sharing programs place bike stations at convenient locations, like outside train stations or shopping areas. This makes it easy to make short trips without hailing a cab or losing your parking spot.

2. Reuse

Few of us can commit to making our own…everything, but thanks to collaborative consumption we can gain access to the things we need without driving to a big box store to buy overpriced, over-packaged things made in China. Before assuming that you need to buy, why not check in to see if your community has what you’re looking for? There are literally hundreds of services that make it peer-to-peer rental, barter, and consignment as easy as checking your email. By swapping, you extended the lifecycle of each shared item, which means things are in use much longer before they head to the landfill.

3. Repurpose

Although it’s easy to share tangible things, like clothes, electronics, cars, but don’t think for a minute they’re the only things we can share. We can also share time, space, and perhaps most importantly, skills. Time shares are a great way to turn free time into a valuable currency that can be used to stimulate the local economy. Hacker and maker spaces are collectives for those who would rather produce than consume. Members share knowledge of beer making or woodworking or solar panel construction as well as the space and tools required to realize their projects. There are even repair cafes dedicated specifically to teaching people how to repair broken items so that they don’t get trashed just because they’re a little worn.

Image: Robert S. Donovan

The post 3 Ways to Share Your Way to A Zero-Waste Lifestyle appeared first on EcoSalon.

Time vs. energy waster. 

Coffee and environment are inextricably linked, but to put your caffeine addiction into perspective, consider: one latte releases about the same amount of CO2 emissions as using Facebook for an entire year.

In 2011, Facebook says its “data centers and operations used 532 million kilowatt hours of energy, and emitted 285,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent.” That’s the same amount of CO2 as about 52,000 passenger vehicles would emit in one year. Broken down per user per year and you get the latte comparison.

Not a coffee drinker? According to the company, one year of Facebook accounts for about the same amount of energy as two glasses of wine.

Pick your environmental poison.

Image: dusk-photography

The post What’s Worse For the Environment: Lattes or Facebook? appeared first on EcoSalon.

A few years ago, “eco fashion” became the hottest buzzword. The media in particular loved it and used every opportunity available to position it as the hottest trend. Recall those “Green is the New Black” headlines everywhere? Fast forward to today, and we know that eco fashion is definitely not a trend. It is a movement, and one that is taking the world by storm.

How so? Well for starters, a growing number of designers are now sourcing more sustainable fabrics than a few years ago, and the variety and quantity of those fabrics has grown out of this demand. An increasing number of brands and retailers are now engaged in ethical sourcing, and are working with their suppliers to create benchmarks and standards. Many companies now understand the benefits of corporate social responsibility (CSR), even if their product or service is not “green”.

Organic Exchange (OE) offers more evidence of this eco fashion movement. According to their Organic Cotton Market Report, global sales of organic cotton apparel and textiles has grown by $1 billion in 2009, which amounts to a 35 percent increase over 2008. And at the same time that organic cotton sales have grown, overall cotton clothing and home textiles sales have shrunk by seven percent.

However, the rise of organic cotton has been steady for nearly a decade – on average by 40 percent each year since 2001. You just didn’t hear much about it because it wasn’t deemed important enough by mainstream media and industry. But that seems to be changing.

Organic Exchange estimates that the organic cotton market will continue to grow at this steady pace of 20-40 percent – both this year and next, to about $6 billion; and that the organic cotton market has been driven largely by consumer interest in “green” products, and by retailers and companies looking to offer more organic options.

So just who are the top organic cotton buyers from 2009 according to the OE report? You might be shocked to learn that it’s some of the biggest names in retail, including Nike, Walmart and Adidas.

But really, this isn’t all that surprising when you consider the report Exporting Textiles: March to Sustainability, that recently profiled the top brands and retailers who are implementing environmental sustainability throughout their global supply chains. Among the 19 companies profiled are once again, Nike, Walmart and Adidas! So what exactly are these companies doing to be given such accolades? Let’s take a look.

Adidas adheres to the ISO14001 standard and has an internal environmental benchmarking assessment that they use to collect data from their suppliers. Their top three sustainability priorities are embedding environmental sustainability across the business, effectively managing business risks and social compliance in the supply chain, and extending engagement internally and externally.

Walmart, as we all know, has issued their Sustainability Index, which asks their suppliers a series of questions as they relate to social and environmental practices. They also carry GOTS certification on organic textiles (although questionable to what degree) and their focus on energy efficiency is now shifting toward their suppliers.

Nike uses a few internal tools such as Material Analysis Tool (MAT) and Considered Index to evaluate its life cycle impacts. They have a water program, and have integrated energy efficiency practices at supplier factories.

According to this report, which focuses primarily on energy efficiency, carbon emissions, water and chemical footprint as well as logistics, these three companies rank in the top 5 (Levi Strauss & Co. and Marks & Spencer round out the list).

And so the evidence is mounting. It becomes clearer every day that eco fashion is a movement, and one that is gaining solid ground. I look forward to actively watching as more and more of the big brands and retailers move toward increased sustainability, motivated by people like us who demand quality and ethics from the products we choose to buy.

Image: adifansnet

The post Building the Case for Eco Fashion as a Movement appeared first on EcoSalon.

Finland’s new mail program hopes to cut costs and decrease pollution.

According to the Telegraph, a new system launched in Finland may have snail mail sliding even further from our fingertips. On April 12, Itella, which runs the country’s postal system, will begin a pilot program in which mail is scanned, digitized, and then emailed to recipients. Once in action, it is anticipated that this plan will reduce carbon emissions, paper waste and cut costs by limiting the number of mail carriers on the road.

So far, 126 households and 20 businesses have volunteered to take part in the project. Once mail is scanned, participants receive a text message or email that their mail is ready to view. Some skeptics are worried about privacy issues and have likened this new mail system to tactics used by the KGB. But advocates of the program insist that mail is not read nor is it kept once it has been copied. When it comes to security, Itella’s director, Tommy Tikka, compares the approach not to e-mail but to web banking, insisting the program is safe and secure.

But what about things that can’t be scanned? Replacement credit cards, the feel of embossed fonts, the smell of perfume-scented love letters? For this trial, hard copies of scanned mail (including any additional non-scannable pieces) will still be delivered twice weekly to homes and offices. It’s unclear as to whether this will continue on a regular basis after the trial period has concluded. The trial will run through the end of the year, and if the feedback is positive, the result will be a more widespread program.

With America appearing to move towards cutting Saturday mail deliveries, will this new mail system be next for us, too? Here’s hoping!

But, in the meantime, if you want to eliminate your junk mail right now, check out Tonic’s own Precycle!

Editor’s note: Article by Sophie Rosenblum. Originally published by our friends at Tonic.com. Tonic is a digital media company and news source dedicated to promoting the good that happens each day around the world. Tonic tells the stories of people and organizations who are working to make a difference, by inspiring good in themselves and others. Be sure to visit them and say hi, and follow Tonic on Twitter, too!

Image: uzvards

The post Want to Save the Planet? Have Your (Snail) Mail Scanned appeared first on EcoSalon.

Google Maps released a feature that gives turn-by-turn biking directions in 150 American cities this week, as it has previously for driving, public transportation and walking routes.

According to the company’s own blog, bike directions were the most requested feature by Google Maps users. Pro-bicyclist, and environmentalist groups like Austin’s GoogleMapsBikeThere.org had created petitions and lobbied Google to develop this tool as early as 2007. Their petition scored more than 51,000 signatures.

Others, like RideTheCity in New York, worked to develop their own bike route mapping tools online, with specific, insider knowledge of each metro area.

The new Google feature delivers information about bike trails that have no motor vehicles, and the streets and routes recommended for cyclists, avoiding motor vehicle traffic, and steep hills. So far, the green and bike loving blogosphere has reacted with mixed reviews, deeming Google Maps for Bikes a good start, but not quite there yet.

We hope that Google’s Bike Maps feature will encourage car commuters to go green and get fit. Biking where you might have driven before can prevent tons of carbon emissions each year, while burning hundreds of calories an hour.

Basic Reading:

“Motor vehicle emissions represent 31 percent of total carbon dioxide, 81 percent of carbon monoxide, and 49 percent of nitrogen oxides released in the U.S. A short, four-mile round trip by bicycle keeps about 15 pounds of pollutants out of the air we breathe.” – Top environmental reasons to bike not drive from BikeLeague.org

“Google worked with the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, which advocates for the creation of biking and walking paths throughout the United States, to gather trail-map data. “˜The demand for trail maps and information has never been higher, especially as more people recognize biking as a viable, inexpensive and healthy alternative to driving,’ Rails-to-Trails President Keith Laughlin said in a statement.” – A news item ‘Google Maps Your Way to the Bicycle Path,’ via Silicon Valley Mercury News

“Avid bicyclists, who have long demanded they be treated as equals on the city’s streets, suddenly felt the pain of every driver who has taken a wrong turn after getting glitchy Google Maps directions… Some [cyclists] said the site wanted them to backpedal away from official city bike routes, often adding 10 or 15 minutes to their usual commutes. One regular rider said Google was trying to kill her – directing her to get on Interstate 5.” – A mixed review for Google’s Bike Maps feature by Portland, Oregon cyclists via Oregon Live

“My guess: Google’s bike maps feature will be mostly neglected until they are vastly improved. One suggestion, Google needs a better system to accept crowdsourced input. If cyclists get behind the project, however, Google’s bike maps could become really helpful.” A tough review of Google Bike Maps, by David Coursey for PC World

Further Resources:

“I burn about 66 carolies per mile on my bicycle. My car emits .932 pounds of CO2 per mile”¦” – A by-the-numbers post at CarFree blog

Wired’s Autopia blog seeks readers’ opinion for a “crowdsourced” review of Google Maps new bike feature

A post by Jason St. Amand about the most affordable and best bikes via WalletPop

The website of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which tracks safety issues around driving, mostly, with some cycling and walking studies too

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and business highlights by columnist Lora Kolodny.

Image: Pixel Addict

The post EcoMeme: Cyclists Get Google Maps Love appeared first on EcoSalon.

E-readers are spineless compared with hardcover books, lacking the soulful carbon fingerprints of readers past. You cannot fold the pages of the wafer-thin gadgets, or make your mark with splotches of food or wine. And the idea of clutching the casing to your chest after reading the final line of a novel just leaves me cold. As one book club friend of mine waxes, “There’s just something about the smell of a book.”

Still, we all can smell and see the writing is on the screen when it comes to these devices outsourcing print media, sparing trees and saving money. According to ID TechEx, the total market size in 2010 is a whopping $131 million, and is expected to soar to $1.7 billion by 2014. Much of that growth is attributed to huge success of Kindles and other portable e-readers. “In 2020, the market value will reach $7.45 billion thanks to the availability of flexible, color displays and faster refresh rates,” the market analysts predict.

Why do users find them so friendly?

“I bought one for my wife for her birthday and enlarged the fonts so she can read the words on the screen without squinting or wearing reading glasses,” says Steve Montoya, a Bay Area IT consultant. “She’s an avid reader. Recently, she read a series she couldn’t get in e-print, and couldn’t wait to finish it and get back to her Kindle.”

While you can’t download all desirable titles now, the Amazon library and others are growing every day.

“You can get books, magazines, newspapers, even audio books to listen to with headphones,” Montoya says.

The graphite feature also is a huge power saver, he finds, noting you can get several days of reading on one charge. And since it works on a cellular network, it also makes it easy to instantaneously order books and have them appear on your library. Plus, the e-readers never seem to lose connection.

“My brother-in-law is in Afghanistan and his iPhone doesn’t work, but his Kindle does,” says Montoya.

If the prequel of our paperless future is the tragic death of magazines and newspapers, will the sequel be the disappearance of paperback and hardcover reads? Are there upsides to this plot? Here are some of the pros and cons of e-reading devices:

Cost

Pro: If you are a voracious reader without a library card, you probably will save money on an e-reader. If you are a voracious reader with a library card, you probably will save on late fees.

Con: You have to spend a lot for the cheapest iPad, which is wifi-only, holds 16GB of storage and sells for nearly $500. The Que is $649 and has a 4GB of data storage. The 3G wireless Amazon Kindle is more affordable at $250.

Storage

Pro: When the Kindle was introduced in 2007, travelers loved the benefits of of storing up to 1,500 books on a device the size of a small paperback read. And the library of available books to download keeps expanding (the first chapter of any book is free). Let’s face it, we are a storage-challenged human race with too much junk and not enough apartment and home space. This eliminates the need for shelving.

Con: Our private libraries are important for sharing with our friends and children and passing down treasured collections – classics and complementary fiction that rocked our world. Plus, it’s a lot easier to lose a gadget than an entire dusty collection.

Green

Pro: Many green publications, including Inhabitat, sing the praises of e-readers because they ultimately aid the environment by requiring no deforestation to manufacture, compared to the traditional paper publishing industry. This doesn’t even include the energy, materials, dyes and carbon from shipping that shames the print industry. According to a study by Cleantech, the carbon emitted in the lifecycle of  a Kindle, for example, is fully offset after the first year. And more earth-friendly models are on the move, like LG’s Solar ebook introduced last year, boasting a thin photovoltaic cell which keeps the juice pumping so your novel won’t go kaput during the climax.

Con: What is being offered is a new thing to buy, to keep you busy on the subway. High tech by nature is incompatible with green with exceptions such as solar panels, which also require an investment in energy to make. Green means a return to what your grandparents did, a return to simplicity: Walk a few blocks to school and work. Open a book on your front porch and snooze. That’s 18th Century technology. Also, the effectiveness of reducing emissions by popularizing these gadgets is dependent upon the publishing industry standardizing its adoption of the technology while committing to cutting down the production of physical books and other print media. Is this likely to happen anytime soon, other than by default?

Convenience

Pro: Toss the paper thin, lightweight, wireless device in your bag and you’re good to go. The new generation of Kindles is lighter than a paperback at 6″ and 10.2 oz. and you can hold it with one hand, which aids those carpal tunnel issues. This is why so many e-readers are the new companions of commuters. Hopefully, driving laws will keep users from biting into New Moon while behind the wheel. If you thought texting was was a dangerous distraction while driving…

Con: The tactile experience of gripping a book, magazine or Sunday paper can outweigh the fact it might be heavier to lug. It is this experience that is woven into our cultural wiring. No matter how hard technology tries, the tendency for consumers to prefer print over e-readers will endure for many years to come. With regard to our cultural connection to books, a graduate student at the University of Toronto wrote that his first experiences with a reader felt like “a courageous betrayal of every word written from the moment papyrus gave way to paper.”

Connection

Pro: We are a society that needs to stay connected now more than ever. In terms of signal range, e-readers never seem to drop out.

Con: Losing connection might be easier on the eyes. Having your head in a book just isn’t the same as having your peepers fixed on a screen for hours of pleasure reading. Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS) cases are rising in people looking for relief from fatigue, strain and irritation caused by focusing on worlds and images on a surface without well-defined edges contrasted against backgrounds. Eyes simply respond better to most printed text of bold black letters on a bright, white background.

Images: E-readers

The post E-Readers: Cute as a Button or a Real Page Burner? appeared first on EcoSalon.