While much of conventional farming is doing more harm than good to the climate, wheat may be an important crop for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So, would wheat still be such a dietary pariah if it could help to curb climate change?

According to a new paper published in the recent journal Nature Communications, we may want to give wheat another chance. “The study found that a combination of a few basic farming practices boosted wheat production and put heaps of carbon back into the soil–more than enough to compensate for the GHGs emitted in the process of growing it,” reports Civil Eats.

It’s been thought that wheat actually contributes to greenhouse gases by producing carbon, but the roots and stems of the plants that are left in the ground at the end of the growing season actually replenish carbon in the soil, which offsets emissions. Civil Eats explains: “That means reducing the climate impact of wheat hinges on maximizing soil carbon storage and minimizing inputs, all while growing as much grain as possible.”

The researchers farmed several dozen test plots, with four different cropping techniques, measuring the results. The test plots were either grown with “a three-year rotation of fallow-wheat-wheat, another of fallow-flax-wheat, a two-year rotation of wheat and lentils, and continuous wheat plantings,” reports Civil Eats. “What the researchers found surprised them: All of the plots had a negative carbon footprint.”

All of the wheat returned more carbon than was emitted, the researchers discovered. “In part, the researchers attribute this result to the way they calculated the total carbon balance; many previous studies failed to consider the role of soil carbon at all,” Civil Eats explains.

The researchers discovered that keeping the crops in the ground instead of fallowing the land (keeping it unseeded) was a hugely important factor in the decrease of wheat’s carbon footprint. But the researchers also noted the pressure of continuous planting, which can require carbon-intensive chemical fertilizers and pesticides. It turns out though, the lentils used in one of the test plot groups were hugely beneficial in the reduction of fertilizer, according to Civil Eats. “On average, fields planted with lentils required 30 percent less fertilizer than fields planted continuously with wheat, and produced just as much grain.”

The lentils behaved much like cover crops do. A common practice in organic farming, the lentil increased the nitrogen.

“Overall, the scientists estimated that for each kilogram of wheat they harvested, the soil removed up to a third of a kilogram of CO₂ from the atmosphere,” explains Civil Eats. “That bodes well for the large swaths of the planet where Spring wheat is grown in semi-arid environments similar to the North American Great Plains, like China, India, and parts of South America.”

Does that mean we should all increase our intake of wheat? After all, it’s a grain that’s become increasingly less tolerated—from the rise in Celiac disease to other gluten sensitivities. But some experts think that those “sensitivities” aren’t as real as people think. In other words, if you’ve been avoiding wheat because you think it upsets your body, it may be more of a psychological reason than a digestive one.

Another benefit to wheat is that it’s not genetically modified like other major U.S. grown crops, soy and corn. The U.S. is also the largest producer of wheat in the world, so it’s a local food in that regard,  unlike some of our other beloved commodities. Supporting American farmers is important to our economy and our food system. Of course, all wheat is not created equal. But it can be part of a healthy diet for humans and the planet.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

Berkeley Approves Global Warming Warning Labels at Gas Pumps

Is it ‘Global Warming’ or is it ‘Climate Change’?

Global Warming Gets a Titanic Wake-Up Call: James Cameron’s Eco Documentary

Image: John Loo

The post Can a Loaf of Bread Decrease Greenhouse Gas Emissions? appeared first on EcoSalon.

7 truths you need to know about China’s environmental notoriety.

As I’m writing this, I’m preparing for my return trip to Chongqing, China after a two-month vacation living at home with my parents in beautiful (albeit morbidly freezing) Fargo. While I’m reveling in the fact that I’ll be going to a place with weather over zero, I’m a little less psyched than last September when my boyfriend and I first left for China, with hearts full of hope and three suitcases full of dreams.

Hope and dreams aside, it’s principally the glamor of living in a foreign country that was crushed in the months that ensued after my arrival, during which I studied my brains out, Chinese style (I’m studying Mandarin – learning 30 completely different hieroglyphs daily and being tested on them the next), got to do my laundry by hand, and slept “comfortably” each night with my boyfriend on a lovely spring-loaded twin mattress.

The great thing about international travel is that you learn what you can truly live with (and without). In this case, I learned I can live with all of the aforementioned, plus long layovers, 14-hour flights, ten-times-crazier-than-New-York cab drivers, and much much more. In retrospect, I can even laugh about most things.

But this is what I can’t laugh about: pollution boogers.

I’m sorry, dear reader, but the thing I am dreading above and beyond all else, is waking up with my nose plugged full of black, coal-sooty, shall we say, “organic matter”.

You may have heard all about China’s pollution problems. You may know that China is the biggest net CO2 emitter, having overtaken the U.S. in 2007. You may have even heard that 16 of the world’s 20 most disgustingly grimy, unlivable, unbreathable cities in the world are in China. But nothing compares to actually waking up to the lovely smell of pollution.

Here are seven things you need to know about China’s environmental problems, from an un-seasoned, non-scientist, pollution-breather. For these purposes, forgive me if I wax a little more serious, but let’s be honest: this is serious stuff.

1.  The human cost of China’s pollution woes is concretely and directly related to astronomical cancer rates and unforgivably low quality of life in many areas.

Take a look at China’s infamous “cancer villages,” villages and towns in China where the entire population has experienced the effect of pollution-linked cancer either personally or inter-personally. These horrifying areas of China reflect the degree to which pollution has directly harmed not just the land and the air, but the people as well. Cancer is China’s #1 cause of death. Only one percent of China‘s 560 million urban dwellers breathe air that the European Union’s standards would consider breathable. While Cancer Villages are poor examples of the whole, they are microcosms of the thousands if not tens of thousands of towns and cities where China’s coal reliance, unclean industry and waste practices have left their mark by a layer of soot and grime that most Chinese treat as a standard feature of the urban landscape.

2. When individuals speak up about this human cost, especially if they tackle environmental problems as a human rights issue, they put themselves at great risk.

One risk is being targeted by rich factory owners and industrial moguls whose wealth is a powerful tool for bribery and an incentive to all around thuggery. The other, more remote but very crushing risk is being deemed subversive and inimical to state stability and becoming a political prisoner for it. It’s downright sad that the greed and corruption underpinning the risk of pissing off the powerful, undermines and reduces environmental advocacy and results in little to no change. It’s even sadder that beneath the risk of becoming a political prisoner there’s a fundamental irony: stifling the voices of people who don’t want heavy metals in their children’s food or have no desire to see their neighbors drop dead from pollution-caused cancer could, even more than letting people advocate for human and environmental rights, become a truer risk of social breakdown.

3. Most of the worst pollution is concentrated in comparatively poorer Northern and inland areas.

Collectively, these areas are the engine that is moving total economic progress forward. They are where coal (China’s life support) is mined, heavy metals are extracted, heavy industry is booming, and domestic goods are produced. They are also the nexus of growing inland-coastal inequality that correlates to urban-rural and poor-rich disparities. Heavily polluting industry is kept away from the wealth and health of coastal poster cities like Shenzhen, not to mention from the newly rich who live there and the tourists who come to see the glossy side of China. There are no aforementioned “cancer villages” on the Southern coast.

4.  The U.S. and China are both part of an import-export machine that drives the global economy, but goods aren’t the only thing we trade.

While the U.S. exports more and more black money-making chunks of carbon to fuel China’s coal dependence, China exports its fair share: acid rain and particulates. If you take a look at this graph, you can see that coal exports from the United States into China sky-rocketed from 386,950 tons in 2009 to 4,071,837 tons in 2010. That’s more than 10 times in one year, proof that pushing to green public policy is not enough- we need to be global. That’s not all, if you’re reading this in Los Angeles, you’re breathing multinational pollution, and some of it is from China. As the New York Times put it, “China’s problem has become the world’s problem. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides spewed by China’s coal-fired power plants fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo. Much of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates in China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research.” 

5. The central government actually has some comparatively brawny environmental regulations, hefty fines for non-compliance, and significant investments in green technology, and to a degree, it’s helped. But it’s not the whole story.

While a degree of mistrust is certainly appropriate, for the most part media reports about China’s greening efforts are reporting the truth. In 2009, China’s state council ambitiously stated that it plans on reducing its carbon intensity by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 (from 2005 levels). Its newly released 12th, five-year plan  (China’s centrally-designed map toward continued progress in 2011 to 2015), clearly indicates a continuing commitment to reducing its environmental issues, including big investments in green energy aimed at kicking its carbon habit and expanding what’s now in place. For example, China has not only overtaken the U.S. in carbon emissions, but according to the Guardian, it has also left the U.S. in the dust with its wind-power generating capacity. 

Here’s the part where we tend to fall prey to China’s image machine: While the central government is by all appearances trying, it isn’t trying that hard. The problem is that centrally designed incentives for local governments are structured around the economy not the environment. Social (re: economic) stability (re: growth) trumps environmental concerns. If a regulation will harm the local economy–say the expense of alienating factory owners by forcing them to put caps on a factory’s smokestacks, a local official just won’t follow it. And the central government, big investments aside, just isn’t willing to change its incentives.

6. Most Chinese feel for the environment and recognize that its destruction is a bad thing, but hope for continuing economic ascension trumps the fear of environmental decline.

Just as in the United States, when it comes to daily decision-making, whether it be by average, everyday people or by high level local officials and factory owners, “the bottom line” is what most people think about. And the bottom line in China is this: Now is the time to get rich (er, “moderately prosperous“) or die trying.  While the die trying part will likely come from destroying the environment, the reward is success in a society that desperately wants to prove its global clout after a century and a half of humiliation by Western powers. 

It’s also important to know that there’s just not the same level of “green” awareness in China as there is in the West and Japan right now. For example, in Chongqing there is a series of slogans run by the charismatic and well-connected mayor called “the Five Chongqings,” which are five visions of Chongqing’s future that are meant to guide its development into a global metropolitan city. One of them is translated into English as “Green Chongqing,” that is, a Chongqing with more trees. More trees is good, but the goal is not necessarily undertaken from an environmental standpoint. In this case, the vision is aesthetic. More trees means a prettier city that more people will want to visit, which means more tourism, and more inflow of capital.

While an expanded notion of “green” and an expanded sense of responsibility toward the environment would be great, most Chinese don’t see themselves as having the luxury to place that above its long economic project that has to date raised millions and millions of people out of abject poverty. And as far as they’re concerned, that project is nowhere near complete.

7.   We are implicated, and in a more complicated way than you may think. It goes without saying that China’s industry produces our products and supports our consumption. There’s no denying it. Just go to Wal-Mart and check every plastic thing you can find. But while we cannot escape this fact, self-flagellation isn’t quite the right response either. Our imports from China have been the linchpin in China’s export machine, the very mechanism that has supported the incredible feat that some call China’s miracle; its aforementioned poverty-elimination project. 500 million Chinese escaped poverty between 1981 and 2004, and in just the 3 years after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, poverty was cut by another 3rd. Our consumption, while we often lament its destructive facets, is a huge part of China’s ability to make that happen.

Let me put it in real terms: Tomorrow I may wake up with black boogers, but in a few months I’ll go home to my country, go to Target, and buy a Chinese-made plastic storage bin so I can organize all of the crap I bought while I was in Chongqing. And while I’m fueling the environmental cause of the current source of my sticky goober dread, I’ll be contributing to a global supply chain that is exploitative, harmful, and has performed the previously unimagined feat of building for my Chinese friends a system in which they can support themselves economically without the need of a communist leadership to give them an “iron rice bowl.” Oh, the ambivalence.

Images: Justin D, Lance Webel, Robertg6n1, blacksmithinstitute, malouenfrankinchina, J_Ensley

The post 7 Things You Should Know About China’s Pollution Problem appeared first on EcoSalon.

I’m no chemist. In fact, I get a little jittery around (and refuse to make eye contact with) the Periodic Table on my son’s closet door. But, given the subject matter here, I must do my best to understand the basic causes surrounding greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on global warming. At times, the concepts seem simple to me (I “get” the greenhouse metaphor) and other times my eyes tragically glaze over when well-meaning scientists try to explain exactly what’s happening here that’s threatening the lives and future of my children. But mental gymnastics aside (sorry folks, some of it is hardcore science), I just read something that I can get my wee right brain around: the air is sooty and we should clean it up.

“A massive simulation of soot’s climate effects finds that basic pollution controls could put a brake on global warming, erasing in a decade most of the last century’s temperature change,” says a Wired Science post. What they’re getting at is that greenhouse gas emissions aside, which are a huge problem and require long-term solutions (“new energy technology and profound changes in lifestyle”), our habit of pumping good ol’ soot into the atmosphere (wood and dung burning, diesel exhaust, small boilers, residential coal use) is something that 1) is a huge part of the problem of global temperature change, and 2) we should be able to get a handle on for immediate impact using simple tools that already exist, like exhaust filters and clean-burning stoves.

The article is based in part on the work of Stanford University climate scientist Mark Jacobson, who conducted the simulation. He found that soot, or black carbon, plays a critical role in global warming, a fact apparently uncovered by prior studies, as well, including work done by NASA back in 2003. But Jacobson’s work takes the simulation a step further, looking into the immediate effects of decreasing the emissions of said soot. The good news, he reports, is that soot has a lifetime in the atmosphere of just a few weeks, while carbon dioxide, for example, has a lifetime of 30 to 50 years. So getting our black carbon problem under control could have a quick and significant effect on global temperatures.

“If you totally stop CO2 emissions today, the Arctic will still be totally melted,” says Jacobson. If we pull in the reins on soot, “the reductions start to occur pretty much right away. Within months, you’ll start seeing temperature differences.”

Explains the article’s author, Brandon Keim: “Soot comes from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, and also from the burning of wood or dung for fuel. Crop residue and forest-burning are another major source.”

The 2003 NASA simulation said soot was responsible for one quarter of all global warming in the 20th century. And soot has been identified a key contributor to crises ranging from to glacier melts to abnormal monsoon activity. The United Nations, says Keim, “puts the soot-related death toll at 1.5 million people annually.”

If stopped tomorrow, the disappearance of soot would could drop average world temps by about a degree Fahrenheit. “That’s about half the net warming – total global warming, minus cooling from sun-reflecting aerosols – experienced since the beginning of the industrial age,” says Keim. “The effect would be even larger in the Arctic, where sea ice and tundra could rapidly refreeze.”

The big picture impact of a wide-scale soot reduction effort could buy time and delay “tipping points” in climate change as greenhouse gases continue to take their toll. While the last year’s draft climate treaty generated in Copenhagen last year doesn’t say anything “soot-specific,” the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) will be discussing soot problems next year. Meanwhile, here in the States, the EPA will soon begin its own black carbon study. In the meantime, it’s nice to know that there may be some immediate answers out there if we just listen up and put a lid – or a filter – on it.

Image: stoixeia

The post The Air Is Sooty. We Should Clean It Up. appeared first on EcoSalon.

Article by Annie Scott, first published March 2010 at Tonic.com.

I’m America, and I’m a pollutionoholic.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has some good news for us all: the US can cut its carbon pollution by 15 percent right now if we all take simple steps. Know how much pollution that is? One. Billion. Tons. Yes we can!

We all know that we should do certain things to keep pollution levels low, but never before have we been told exactly what to do and exactly how much it will help. Hopefully, this is enough to get you and me and everyone we know motivated!

Here’s what you have to do:

1. Use a programmable thermostat and set it to cool down when you’re asleep or out.

2. Reduce your “vampire” electrical usage; unplug stuff that’s charged, unplug the extra refrigerator, turn off the lights (just like your dad said). This will also save you money on your electric bill. Sweet!

3. Consume less red meat and dairy. What’s “less”? Well, think about how many times per day you have a serving of red meat or dairy. Try to halve it. If you’re worried about your calcium, think about other foods like salmon, spinach, okra, almonds … there’s a list here. Here’s where you can get some iron. Delicious – and likely to help you shed some pounds.

4. Waste less food. This is a no-brainer. Nobody’s going to watch you and make sure you eat every pea on your plate, but don’t let your leftovers go bad, don’t buy more perishables than you can consume before they perish. If you want to go all the way, become a freegan dumpster diver, but 25 percent less wasted food will do the trick.

5. Recycle whenever possible. Permission to not recycle when it’s impossible: granted.

6. Replace your incandescent bulbs with CFLs.

7. Reduce motor vehicle idling and maintain your vehicle properly so it doesn’t go spewing noxious gases everywhere. Again, saves money!

8. Carpool twice or telecommute once per week. Propose telecommuting to your boss with environmental intentions and you may finally get your wish!

9. If you fly more than three times per year, fly one less time.

10. Fix your leaks to cut heat loss.

11. Use hot water efficiently – did you know that you can save energy just by insulating your water heater? You can also keep it at a lower temp and use efficient faucets and showerheads. Also, do your laundry in cold water. It keeps the colors brighter anyway.

12. Next time you replace an appliance, get an EnergyStar certified one. This can save electricity and even get you a tax break in some cases.

That’s it. Twelve steps to 15 percent less pollution. Are you in? I am. You can sign up to be part of the movement here, and check out the NRDC’s full analysis and report here.

Editor’s note: Article by Annie Scott. 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!

Photo by *~Dawn~* via Flickr.

The post Reduce Your Carbon Impact by 15% in 12 Easy Steps appeared first on EcoSalon.

Trade in your SUV for a hybrid? Now that’s a stretch for many drivers who are hooked on the notion that more is more, even in the age of doomed resources.

Why is it that well informed, nice people refuse to pull the plug on those ubiquitous waste wagons, despite poor gas mileage and environmental concerns?

The valid eco argument rubs up against a strong attachment to the behemoth breed at every turn as America keeps on trucking. People feel good having them in the garage, owning one after another, perhaps scaling down with a “hybrid” sport ute but not going cold turkey.

It’s a pernicious addiction flaunted in outdoorsy states like California, Arizona and Colorado, where the boxy cars dominate the parking lots of public beaches, shopping malls and ski resorts. Hey, they’re super suburban and sporty, can hold a family of five to eight extremely comfortably, and can’t be beat for schlepping unruly, drooling pets. And don’t forget the winning outcome in bumper-to-bumper combat with puny Smart Cars and other precocious upstarts.

The benefits keep consumers from succumbing to pressure levied by anti-SUV groups like Greener Cars.org, who have galvanized movements against what they deride as “Land Bruisers” and “Extinctions,” spreading slogans like “SUV’s Suck!” I spoke with some of these critics, along with owners to understand the mega car mindset.

There are many obvious and hidden reasons good people won’t buck the truck:

1.Versatility

You can dress the trucks up or down. They handle like cars but have truck qualities. This is what attracts Rob Raznick, a childless, L.A. real estate developer with three horses and three dogs who has owned five super-sized SUV’s. “You’re mixing luxury with utility, cargo, space and amenities for sure,” Raznick says. “I can take my Navigator to the finest restaurant in the evenings with seven people, then put saddles in it the next morning and hook my horse trailer to it and go off road. ”

2. Safety and Security

Sitting high up, looking down on people, not hearing the road or other cars. The stereo is on – the preferred soundtrack to life – and the kids are quietly seated in the back watching a DVD. “It feels like a comfortable couch or easy chair, a safe family room on wheels with that video player, phone and coffee holder, and that’s why one of the biggest ones by Chevy was called the Suburban,” observes consumer activist Ed Lamar. “But it’s like feeling secure because you have nuclear weapons. It is a false sense since they are not safe or secure.”

3. Great for Kids

How many kids can you fit in your car for soccer practice? SUV moms sometimes say eight, while many of us can only fit four. Carpool duty, built-in DVD players and getting those baby carriers easily in and out are among the big lures for parents who opt for the vehicles. Although Janelle Ticktin, a mom of two, says it isn’t as much the kids but the curbs. She can drive up to them with her mega wheels whenever she needs to. “Everyone in Scottsdale drives them because there is tons of space to park all over the city, unlike the situation in congested towns  like San Francisco,” she says.

4. Empowerment

Many of us are looking for power in our powerless lives, and this clearly extends to the road, where big rig envy lets you rule with a small sense of anonymity, especially with that tinted window option. American workers sit in cubicles all day to pay for luxuries like the sport vehicle and a growing number are hiding them from the re-po man. Does fear drive these owners? “You can bring a little suburbia with you when you go the mean streets and pose a threat to everyone around you, and assert your power by not allowing lane changes,” explains Lamar. “Anyone who looks in their rear view mirror will see your grill.”

4. Off Road Use

Commercials featuring minis gliding through water? Nah. Can’t compete with the way  SUV’s are hyped on television. The ads show the picture of the sporty, American life, not being limited by pavement, tearing up some big wheel ruts. And it is a huge draw for weekend warriors who want to get out of Dodge in a Ford Escape and head to the beaches, mountains and other beautiful terrain. “It’s like a ballet for a depraved society,” says one critic.

5. Hauling Cargo

Those without trucks must hire people to lift and haul cargo – or hit up a friend with an SUV. Put the seats down and store your work tools and supplies, Costco economy bundles or toys (skis, snow board, mountain bike). Take home that giant squishy chair you bought on sale at Urban Outfitters. The SUV supports both work and play for many. But the question remains: Is it still okay to drive so much to play?

6. Status

It takes money to buy them and keep the tank fed, and lots of drivers tend to equate the shiny trucks with having arrived, even if it means having arrived on the freeway or at Yosemite’s ritzy Ahwahnee Hote. If you are what you drive, does lugging an SUV make you a sportsman, surfer dude, powerful real estate woman or fierce weekend warrior? Conversely, what does driving a Mini Cooper make you? Clearly, many drivers can’t go there.

7. Hybrid = Eco Option

The introduction of hybrid SUV’s offered even more status to those ready to compromise but not sever their love of trucks. Hybrids are powered by the combo of a gas engine and an electric motor and there have been federal tax benefits offered to those embracing the hybrid technology, which the EPA estimates delivers twice the fuel economy in city driving and nearly double on the highway, along with lower emissions. People can feel hip driving one, like they are doing their part to reduce consumption and fossil fuel emissions.

8. Using them Economically

Some frugal owners clinging to their 1984 Caravans argue there are good ways to green their impossible-to-sell SUV’s. They include driving less and abiding by rules of the road (slowing speeds and brake and gas acceleration), keeping tires inflated and not idling. It could be those employing these methods are doing less damage than hybrid owners who don’t.

9. The “Fun” in Functional

Hummers, Land Rovers, 4-Runners and Land Cruisers have all been added to lists of the “most fun off-road cars” because of attributes like solid suspension, high ground clearance, crawl, action and stability control. The best ones can venture where many other vehicles can’t, and best of all, they look and feel like big toys as they cover rough terrain with ease.  The Mercedes G-Class may rate badly in road tests and on fuel scores, but the car is just so darn adorable. One fan says this Jaguar of jeeps looks like “Herby the Lovebug and a Hummer got a little too friendly.”

10. Beauty and the Beast

In this beauty contest, fuel efficiency might take a back seat to striking good looks. Black SUVs have the largest cache (heck, they’re even in the President’s motorcade) and are common sites in downtowns these days as the choice of “important people.” The Mercedes G-Class may rate badly in road tests and on fuel scores, but the Mercedes emblem is still a yuppie success symbol.

Main Image: About

Images: Amog, Autos.AOL, Edmunds, cargocoach, Mercury Vehicles, The Truth About Cars, Motortrend, blogs.cars

The post Sorry, But I’m Not Driving a Hybrid! 10 Reasons Why Good People Are Sticking with SUVs appeared first on EcoSalon.

When you come in from working all day on the Farmville, check out Urbanville life in the new online game RETROFITS. Launched by the California software company, Autodesk, it features talking buildings that encourage players to learn the benefits of eco upgrades to our city dwellings.

As the makers see it, “Buildings are the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S,” and we need to make buildings better with sustainable and energy efficient design.

“Don’t just stand there,” they tell us, “Play the game, post your high score, and invite your friends to compete – every little fit helps.”

In other words, follow the Farmville route to creating a cooperative green mentality.

More cooperation is needed on the part of architects, engineers, builders, designers and others in the housing trade. According to ArchDaily, a substantial 8 percent of all carbon emissions in America come from powering our buildings and experts say we can achieve half the goal of cutting down on those emissions 60 to 90 percent by 2050.

Want to get started doing your part? Play the game here and let us know how you like it.

The post Retrofits: New Online Game Launched to Play Up Green Renovation appeared first on EcoSalon.

Fighting for a hybrid in every garage is cake compared to the battle to allow an outdoor clothesline in every yard. Still,  advocacy groups like Project Laundry List are urging a return to the days before newfangled cleaning machines drained our electric bills and resources – a time when nobody flinched at the sight of a big bra or jockey shorts flapping in the wind.

Why do these soldiers refuse to fold?

The advocacy group New American Dream calculates that if every American home switched to cold water for four out of five loads, together we can save $6.7 billion per year and keep nearly 50 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere – the equivalent of removing 10 million cars from the road.

If only 40% of those households also line dried their clothes, the annual carbon savings would more than double.

Founded by Alexander Lee of Condord, NH, Project Laundry List has established a website that tracks states with ordinances banning outdoor clotheslines, such as Oregon. You can watch a compelling CBS video on the site of a feature Bill Geist did about a Bend woman engaging in civil disobedience in her subdivision by fighting for her right to conserve energy.

Nationwide, some 300,000 communities with home owner associations restrict outdoor laundry hanging, according to the Community Associations Institute.

Lee and others argue it is ridiculous to have to fight to hang clothes in your own backyard, and has spurred a national movement of likeminded enviromentalists. He has gone so far as to suggest the Obama White House reinstate clotheslines on the lawn as it once had in the early 1900s. You can vote for this as well, on the site.

Lee and his Laundry List have weight behind them with board advisors that include famed forward thinker,  Dr. Helen Caldicott and Dick McCormack, a former Vermont State Senator who re-introduced the Right to Dry bill in 1999, which his brother had introduced almost 10 years earlier. It resulted in passage this year, making it no longer a crime to do the right thing.

Helping push the bill along in Vermont was the owner of the wholesome Vermont Country Store. Owner Lyman Orton has written editorials in his national catalog and other media to egg on  homeowners to “set up a clothesline and hang your wash out even if you live in a neighborhood or subdivision where doing so is prohibited.” He asks rhetorically, “Is it not the height of snobbery to ban hanging clothes out to dry?”

Even before Vermont lawmakers got their act together, Orton was selling clothesline products, such as sheets specifically designed to billow in the breeze.

There are many such “Laundry Heroes” identified by Project Laundry List, including actress Daryl Hannah, Vermont Governor Jim Morris and Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario, Canada (above), who signed a rule allowing millions in the Province of Ontario to hang dry to their heart’s content.

To review more of the group’s accomplishments, check out the site and see what you can do to further the cause. Your backyard is standing by and waiting for you to feed it a line.

Ontario premier lifts outdoor clothesline ban (CTV.ca)

Images: Cyron, Vermont Country Store, CTV

The post Civil Disobedience in the Subdivision: Project Laundry List appeared first on EcoSalon.

From organic cotton garb to reusable serving ware, they have raised the bar in San Francisco this week as more than 1,500 Jewish teen athletes from 40 U.S. cities and four international countries (Mexico, Guatemala, Israel and Canada) compete in the Maccabi Games 2009.

This year, for the first time, organizers introduced a Green Team – a committee chaired by Miriam Gordon, an environmental activist, and games director, Jackie Lewis. Their game plan: a zero-waste event that completely circumvents the dreaded landfill.

Instead of the usual bottled water and other plastic beverage containers supplied to thirsty players, the participants have been issued reusable stainless steel water bottles to be refilled throughout the week of competition.

Garbage cans at every venue, from the polo fields in Golden Gate Park for soccer matches to the ritzy Meadow Club for golf – will be called eco-stations with recycling and composting labels for dispensing with waste.

“It’s a whole new way of doing the event,” Gordon told the Jewish News Weekly, adding that in addition to the reusable bottles, the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco (the event sponsor) will serve athletes kosher meals on reusable/compostable plates with reusable utensils.

Apparently, this will also cut down on a huge litter problem on fields and event sites witnessed at past games held throughout the country.

Lewis says it’s not unusual to see water bottles scattered on the ground or thrown in the garbage because the kids are so preoccupied with matches, they aren’t thinking about what they are doing (ahh, yes, those clueless days!).

But greening the event reinforces the message that the kids must learn to be the stewards of the planet and do their part to conserve resources and consume wisely. In other words, be keen green teens!

Other gold medal eco moves:

The transportation company hired to drive the teens uses buses that run on biofuels, posters have been printed on reclaimed cardboard, volunteer tees were made from organic cotton and the food served to athletes will be mostly organic and locally-produced. The organizers also made an effort to produce fewer paper programs and notices, and whatever they did print was double-sided and on post-consumer, recycled products.

Not to miss a beat, even the pins (above) that the San Francisco delegation was issued to trade with other athletes were forged of recycled PVC-plastic.

There’s also an online component that allows spectators and participants to calculate their carbon footprint during the week of games. They can offset the pounds of carbon produced by making a contribution to the Jewish National Fund or the Carbon Fund.

Images: Luanne Bradley

The post Jewish Teen Summer Olympic Games Reach for the Green appeared first on EcoSalon.

Like many of us, I rely on the computer and internet for work and, increasingly, for pleasure. Switching it off is not really an option.

Yet, I am also concerned by the fact that the IT industry is a growing contributor to the world’s greenhouse emissions. I am trying to do my part – cutting back my usage (curbing my addiction) and not indulging my love of gadgets by upgrading to the shiniest new toys as soon as they become available.

Now I have found another solution. Click 4 Carbon is a for-profit business based in the UK that aims to raise money for forestation projects in Asia. The site includes an online community and information about how to green your lifestyle. That’s all well and good but I’m sure you readers are pretty clued up about that already. What really excites me is the search tool.

Nearly anyone who uses the internet uses search. There’s no need to feel guilty about that, despite what you may have read. (The claim that two Google searches uses as much energy as boiling the kettle for a cup of tea is a myth, based on some sketchy physics guesswork and a misquote). Yet you can do better.

What I like about Click 4 Carbon is that it is not asking me to change behaviour – it is simply asking me to be smart about it. If whenever I need to do a search, I do it through Click 4 Carbon instead of Google or Yahoo. This way, I am helping a green business survive and fund forestation projects in Asia at the same time. It is still powered by Google so I know the search results will be good and the site also pledges to offset the carbon used to run the business, including its servers.

Now this is what I have been searching for.

Image: DeclanMT

The post How Your Internet Searches Can Fund Forests appeared first on EcoSalon.

These days, making your house energy efficient makes sense not only because it’s good for the environment, but also because it’s good for the household budget. But figuring  out what needs to be done, how to get it done, and working out the costs can be as daunting as trying to find your way out of a maze in the dark.

Luckily, the Sierra Club has taken the guesswork out of greening your home with their new interactive Green Home website. It’s the brainchild of Carl Pope, Sierra Club executive director, who discovered when trying to green his own home that access, information, and assistance weren’t all that easy to find.

As a result, Pope and his colleagues at the Sierra Club created a user-friendly web site that provides all the facts at your fingertips. With more than 100 sustainability-related articles by prominent green journalists available to read, and contact details for thousands of  authentically green product providers and services, this site is seriously resource rich.

The post Green Your Home with Help from the Sierra Club appeared first on EcoSalon.