In a bitter twist of fate, right around Earth Day, one of the worst-ever oil spills in the U.S. began. It started on April 20th, when a Transocean Ltd.-owned oil rig called the Deepwater Horizon, which was drilling for black gold on behalf of BP (British Petroleum) exploded. The rig sank into the water off the shores of Louisiana, taking oil rig workers’ lives and spewing pollution into the water.

Today, the tarry crude oil bleeding from that site is nearing the ecologically rich shores of Louisiana, home to threatened and endangered species including bald eagles, mottled ducks, leatherback sea turtles and blue whales.

Scientists and conservationists have tried everything to prevent the oil from hitting land, including burning it off. That raises questions, for us, about air pollution vs. water pollution, and the rock-and-a-hard-place decisions from hell that ecologists must be facing now, in Louisiana.

But nothing’s worked. And it now appears inevitable that the BP spill, as it continues to leak crude oil into the Gulf, will impart worse damage than the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, bringing more pain not just to the creatures and plants, but to the people living in a region that has yet to recover from Hurricane Katrina.

The blogosphere has been in collective mourning for the people, sea creatures, tourism and fishing industry in the region, as a result.

If there’s a silver lining to be had, the spill may have inspired enough environmentalists, and reasonable people to question (and hopefully block) President Obama’s plan to expand offshore, oil drilling in protected areas in the U.S.

In light of the oil industry’s everlasting failure to guarantee the safety of the waters through which it drills for, and across which it transports the non-renewable fuel, we’re asking you to study up and get the word out: it’s time to break our oil addiction, and work to immediately conserve what’s left of our coast, watershed and habitat in the U.S. that’s pure, and sustaining.

Basic Reading:

“BP basically misled everybody about the size of the spill – by a factor of 5 – and hence their ability to control it. It was NOAA – which is to say the Obama administration – that realized BP was lowballing the leak, and that the problem was beyond the company’s resources, and that much broader action was needed. The leak rate is now estimated at more than 200,000 gallons a day – which means it will exceed the Exxon Valdez disaster within 2 months. I just heard on ABC news that 400 species are threatened and that Louisiana coastline contains 40% of the US wetlands.” – From the ongoing coverage of all things BP-Oil-Spill by Climate Progress, a blog that focuses on all climate change issues. Via Climate Progress

“The search for the 11 missing workers was called off days ago, but the oil well they left behind continues to produce 42,000 gallons a day of oil that has now spread into a slick covering 28,600 square miles of the Gulf. In hopes of restricting further spread the Coast Guard will, you’re going to love this, set fire to the sea”¦Meanwhile, oil companies are already planning more drilling in the same area.” – Daily Kos considers the impact of the spill, and its political and industrial roots. Via Daily Kos

“The state departments of Health and Hospitals and Environmental Quality said the strong odor blanketing much of coastal Louisiana and the metro New Orleans area is “possibly” the result of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The agencies have requested continuous air quality testing and monitoring from the Environmental Protection Agency, and DEQ officials said they have increased the frequency of air sampling at its Kenner and Chalmette monitors.” – The Times Picayune is providing extensive, feature reports on the oil spill cleanup attempts, and issues. Via Nola

Further Resources:

The website of Clean Ocean Action, an environmentalist group, which is against offshore oil drilling expansion in the U.S.

Questions You Should Be Asking About The Oil Spill – Business Insider

100,000 Strong Against Offshore Oil Drilling, a Facebook Community

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

Image: NASA Goddard Photo and Video

The post EcoMeme: Fire on the Water appeared first on EcoSalon.

The privacy watchdogs have been barking hard this season. In case you’ve been off-the-grid, here’s the controversy from the world of social media that preceded one perhaps even larger about DNA research…

This week, Facebook automatically gave its users’ personal information to sites like Yelp and Pandora. Now, you and your FB friends can see each others’ bitchiest restaurant reviews, and worst, one-hit-wonder indulgences whether or not you ever intended to reveal these to one another.

Last month, Google raised privacy concerns when it automatically revealed its email users’ closest contacts to the Gmail public, through the launch of its Google Buzz product. Google Buzz was supposed to have taken over Digg, Twitter, and everything else social media by now but hasn’t, quite partly due to public backlash.

Now, imagine it’s not your social map, preferred menu or your pop cultural sensibilities being scrutinized and seen by the public. This time, it’s your actual hereditary material! We’re talking public, deoxyribonucleic acid blues.

One Native American tribe, the Havasupai, sued and won their legal battle against researchers from the University of Arizona who were using their DNA to run tests for things the tribe never authorized.

According to several legal news sites, the Havasupai initially donated DNA samples agreeing to a project that was supposed to focus on their tribe’s high incidence of diabetes. But the samples kept getting tested. Other matters, besides diabetes vulnerability, became a question subject to the scientists’ inquiries including the tribe’s supposed geographical origins, and their collective mental health.

The environmental implications regarding how a specimen gets used are as staggering as the ethical and legal ones.

Fishing rigs in Japan, for example, may state and are authorized to fish for whales in order to study whale population changes and marine health, or to hunt whales within a quota. But they sometimes sell the whales they “accidentally” catch, or catch for “scientific study,” as whale meat on the black market.

Should they be allowed to re-sell the grand creatures they kill for food if the intent was scientific study? Isn’t it wasting them, not to eat them if they’ve already been hunted?

Or does a scientific and accidental allowance create a black market and culinary demand, as well as disrespect for endangered species?

Finally, if you gave your DNA up for one study, why not the other?

Use the links and resources below to get informed, and talk to us about how much intent matters when it comes to science and knowledge gains for the greater public. Comment below or holler on Twitter @ecosalon.

Basic Reading:

– “The geneticist responsible for the research has said that she had obtained permission for wider-ranging genetic studies. Acknowledging a desire to ‘remedy…wrong that was done,” the university’s Board of Regents agreed to pay $700,000 to 41 of the tribe’s members, return the blood samples and provide other forms of assistance to the [tribe]. Legal experts said [the settlement] was significant because it implied that the rights of research subjects can be violated when they are not fully informed about how their DNA might be used.” – Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of Its DNA, a New York Times news feature

– A Discover magazine blog post asking what will happen to DNA samples that were gathered before the idea of consent was formalized in regards to DNA research, now that this case was won.

– “The vast majority of the world’s countries are against the killing of endangered animals in but Japan issues itself a “scientific whaling” permit using a loophole in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) bylaws to continue commercial whaling. Every year since the moratorium they escalate the “takes” or kills in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary to include more and more protected and endangered animals.” – A HuffingtonPost blog entry by Louie Psihoyos

Further Resources:

A privacy-focused blog that takes a strong side with the Havasupai tribe

Researchers’ perspectives on the matter of consent and DNA samples, via Swiss DNA Bank

Clashes between environmentalists and the whaling industry continue in New Zealand, a news feature at the New Zealand Herald

Image: micahb37

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

The post EcoMeme: Is Your DNA a Public Concern? appeared first on EcoSalon.

We didn’t see a fire, but there’s smoke and ongoing chatter about it all over the Web this week. More taxes and stricter regulations of tobacco sales and use are being put into place all around the world. At the same time, a new scientific discovery could get us closer to curing lung cancer.

First the good news. Researchers found a cluster of genes that are “active” in lung cancer patients, even in their healthy tissue and especially in their wind pipes, that could help predict whether smokers are going to develop lung cancer and help them get early treatment which is more effective in fighting lung cancer.

But why smoke and chance it with cancer or other health problems, or risk exposing others?

California is playing it safe with a ban on smoking at public parks and beaches. The Chickasaw nation banned smoking on all its properties. And Utah planned new taxes on tobacco, too.

Next month, Michigan will become the latest state to ban smoking in public buildings and workplaces including pubs and restaurants.

The states may be following the fed’s lead; President Obama put stricter tax laws and regulations on the sales of cigarettes online effective as of April 1st.

We were happy that on April 7th, global political and thought leaders who spoke at a World Health Day conference, like New York’s Mayor Bloomberg, rallied to make urban living healthier through support of smoking cessation programs (along with greater focus on clean air, water and efficient transportation).

Two more studies that are galvanizing enough to make you quit cold turkey…

The American Lung Association disturbingly finds that “Blacks are hit the hardest when it comes to both developing and dying from lung cancer,” in part due to tobacco marketers’ seemingly biased efforts to push menthol cigarettes to African American consumers.

And the Royal College of Physicians in England calls for a ban on smoking in vehicles and public places where children frequently visit. Why? Because secondhand smoke, according to their report, causes middle ear diseases, lower respiratory infections, asthma and can even contribute to sudden infant death.

Australia is mulling more taxation and banning of cigarettes, too.

Indonesia, a country for which cigarettes are a key economic driver, seemed quite the loner, instead of part of this world clique, on Wednesday, when the nation’s trade minister refuted a U.S. ban on sales of clove cigarettes. She said the ban unfairly effects one of Indonesia’s biggest industries, and violates international rules set forth by the World Trade Organization.

Is anti-smoking sentiment going to sink economies? Or is banning smokers from public pollution a good green move? Read up with the links above and below, and give us your two cents in a comment or Tweet to @ecosalon.

Basic Reading:

“Blacks are hit the hardest when it comes to both developing and dying from lung cancer. A new report from the American Lung Association paints a grim picture of how environmental factors, biological factors, cultural attitudes and biases in the health-care system conspire to make this deadly disease even deadlier among members of this minority group.” – Medical news feature for Health Day by Amanda Gardner

“Cigarette smoke causes 90 percent of all cases of lung cancer, which kills 1.2 million people a year globally. But only about 10 percent of smokers ever develop lung cancer, although they often die of other causes such as heart disease, stroke or emphysema.” – John O’Callaghan, Reuters health writer’s story on a group of genes that can help doctors spot lung cancer early

“Surveys throughout Australia in recent years show an incremental increase in support for smoking bans in bars, restaurants and clubs to the point that it regularly tops 80 per cent”¦If the proposed ban was enough to make smokers feel unloved, a National Preventative Health Taskforce plan to hit them with a $6.50-a-packet tax increase must make them feel positive outcasts.” – An opinion editorial by Terry Sweetman for CourierMail

Further Resources:

A U.S. government website with hands-on advice to help you quit smoking, or help you cheer a smoker into dropping the habit

Phillip Morris cancels cigarette price hikes in Japan to avoid further fall in sales, there, reports Kyodo News / Japan Times

Farmer seeks review of anti-tobacco laws in Jakarta, Indonesia

Image: Jason Anfinsen

The post EcoMeme: Non-Smoking Section Expands appeared first on EcoSalon.

Capitalizing on the pro-nuclear-power views of President Obama, privately held companies and investors, in particular Bill Gates and Nathan Mhyrvold, are investing in the development of miniature and traveling wave nuclear reactors that could use spent uranium from nuclear power plants to safely supply energy to our humble abodes.

At least entrepreneurs are talking directly about what to do to solve nuclear waste problems. Because this week the Obama Administration released its plan to reduce and put limits on the usage of the United States’ nuclear arsenal, but disappointingly failed to address the costs and impact of nuclear waste from power plants and the weapons industry, on our health and the environment.

The Nuclear Posture Review, a 49-page document, contains plenty of prose about aging nuclear warheads and facilities that are in decline, and admits these need to be revamped to better handle nuclear materials. But words like cancer, sludge and water pollution did not appear. The phrase “safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal” was repeated copiously, though.

The nuclear lobby spent almost half-a-million dollars in the last four months of 2009 to sway public and political opinion, according to Business Week. And perhaps not surprisingly, Gallup polls show that Americans are more approving of nuclear power these days than they have been in decades. They are also more willing to accept environmental suffering in exchange for more sources of energy.

This is all despite some good arguments against nuclear power from the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth.

Sierra Club notes that nuclear reactors, even the safest ones, can be susceptible to natural disaster and rendered unsafe. As recently as 2007, an earthquake in Japan impacted a nuclear power plant there, releasing radioactive water into the Sea of Japan. Friends of Earth suggests that nuclear power investments are a distraction from better renewable energy and efficiency alternatives. They found that “from 1948 to 1998, the government awarded nearly $75 billion in handouts to the nuclear power industry while spending less than $15 billion on renewable energy and only about $12 billion on energy efficiency measures.”

But nuclear energy and science insiders resoundingly believe nuclear is part of the essential, global, clean energy solution. Prof. Kathryn Higley, the acting department head at Oregon State University’s Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics department, points out that some environmentalists who changed their mind and supported nuclear power, over time, include some of our favorites!

They are: Stewart Brand, a founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, one of the Greenpeace founders Patrick Moore, Jared Diamond, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Guns, Germs and Steel, and Gwyneth Cravens, author of The Power to Save the World.

Some anti-nuke environmentalists, Higley believes, hold on to outdated fears. “While I’m not advocating that you go and hug a fuel rod, we understand very well by now how radiation interacts with matter,” she says. “We understand the hazards of radiation and radioactive material more than any other type of hazard, today. In fact, we use radiation and radioactive materials to diagnose and treat a variety of diseases, including cancer now.”

Higley explains that in order to meet growing demands for energy, while limiting the CO2 emissions that are produced from power facilities, we are limited currently to hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear energy. Some of these low CO2 technologies are limited in their ability to expand capacity, she says, and have their own negative impacts on the environment. For example: hydro dams adversely effect salmon populations in the Northwest today, and solar works, only where it is sunny.

Waste not, want not, Higley believes: “Spent nuclear fuel shouldn’t be viewed as waste! There is so much energy left in the fuel, so it is really silly to permanently dispose of it. New fuel reprocessing techniques can reduce waste volume as well as the radiotoxicity of the residual material so that the volume of real waste is very small and…more easily stored.”

Are no nukes, good nukes to you? Or can you see a way to make the problem into the solution? Learn more about nuclear weapons, waste and how it can get recycled, with the links and resources below. Then call it like you see it, here or on Twitter @ecosalon.

Basic Reading:

– A Smartplanet.com article on the Bill Gates-backed Terrapower plan to develop “traveling wave” nuclear reactors, safe for home-use

– “Can Bill Gates and Toshiba save us from global warming? They plan a miniature traveling-wave nuclear reactor in every home, to spell the end of climate change…” – Interesting opinions on the idea of home, mini-reactors curated by blogger Richi Jennings for Computer World

– “Not that long ago, any Democratic president daring to fly a ‘More Nukes’ banner would have been fried by his own base. But Obama’s request for $54 billion in federal loan guarantees, and his State of the Union pitch for a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants,’ have barely moved the ire meter… [T]here is still no solution to the radioactive-waste storage problem. Current plants produce 2,200 tons of waste a year, all of which has to be stored on-site. Do the math: That’s more than 60,000 tons over the last 30 years. Some California plants are storing their waste next to seismic faults. ” – A political op-ed by Dick Polman via the Philadelphia Inquirer

– “Energy development and energy independence are enormous issues our nation must continue to address aggressively. The economy will recover, growth will resume and energy deficiencies will, once again, be front and center as topics of major concern. That’s why it is heartening to see the Obama administration tackle energy issues head-on, with aggressive support for all forms of energy, including new nuclear plants…” A pro-nuclear argument from the Salt Lake City Tribune

– The U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Management page, detailing different types of nuclear waste, and admitting that the D.O.E. lacks information about the impact of nuclear waste and possibility for true, environmental restoration around contaminated land and water

Further Resources:

The Sierra Club’s guide to nuclear waste issues

“A False Solution to Climate Crisis,” statement by Friends of the Earth, and their anti-nuclear campaign website, NuclearLie.org

An Associated Press story on recent, nuclear waste management issues and politics in Utah

Roger Alford’s news brief on nuclear politics and past problems in Kentucky via Business Week

A discussion on the Flickr comment board of investor Steve Jurvetson, about Bill Gates’ TED talk on the Nuclear Future

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

Image: World Economic Forum

The post EcoMeme: Nuclear Weapons and Waste appeared first on EcoSalon.

Lust for Apple’s iPad reached a fevered pitch the second the company allowed pre-orders online (March 12th). We anticipate that the iPad will remain a trending topic on every corner of the internet, as sales begin at Best Buy and Apple stores April 3rd.

Greenpeace has been using iPad buzz to get people thinking about a need for greener information technology.

Are they really trying to take the wind out of Apple’s iPad sails, nee sales? Or is it reasonable to ask Apple fan-girls and -boys to think hard before they buy another wireless gewgaw, with another battery and batch of peripherals and accessories? Or for that matter, to ask us all how many times a day we really need to check our Facebook and Twitter feeds.

A March 30th Greenpeace statement cited research that predicts a triple increase in electricity consumption by data centers and telecommunication networks in the next decade. It called on computing giants, especially Apple, Microsoft, IBM and Google, to “get [their] carbon footprint under control.”

While Greenpeace views the IT industry with a skeptical eye, cloud computing insiders like Sherrie Wu, vice president of product development at AirSet in Berkeley, California thinks the trend of cloud computing – doing everything online, including storing files, accessing and using applications, versus downloading them and working from a hard drive – is already doing more good than harm, environmentally.

Wu explained, “Cloud computing like we offer at AirSet lets office teams collaborate on documents online in an integrated environment. Team members or even family members’ access to information, with cloud computing no longer relies on printed or email copies. Teams can keep their schedules, contacts, files, and all the other digital data that are important in one secure place, again instead of printing or emailing.”

Reduced paper consumption and fewer logins to get to the information you need sounds great. But with all of the electricity consumption, can cloud computing, including the iPad, have a silver-green lining?

Get informed and weigh in below, or Tweet your thoughts our way @ecosalon

Basic Reading:

Official iPad Product Specs

“Apple won’t say how many iPads it has sold in advance of their debut Saturday, and it’s hard to predict how many enthusiasts will camp overnight and swamp Apple stores when the doors open Saturday at 9 a.m., as they did for last summer’s launch of the most recent version of the iPhone”¦” – An Associated Press story by Jessica Mintz anticipating a successful iPad launch.

“The iPad”¦relies on cloud computing – a system where information and core processes are accessed through a network, rather than on a local server. The iPad is only one instance of this type of operation. Google is another, and the practice is increasingly common”¦.” – A Guardian UK story by Vincent Bevins discussing the environmental benefits and potential drawbacks of cloud computing.

“Apple has indicated that the iPad is highly recyclable and free of harmful chemicals. The likely long-term environmental impact of the iPad is nonetheless ambiguous at best”¦ it seems [like] another device that adds to our modern electronic clutter and feeds into the cannibalistic trend of shrinking product lifecycles.” – Change.org writer Giovannia Mejia discusses electronics makers’ use of “conflict” minerals, and compares the IT industry to the diamond industry.

Further Resources:

IPad Accessories Chart on Testfreaks.com, a design blog.

A feature story about Seton Hill University’s Plan to Issue Freshman iPads and MacBooks.

The iPad reviewed from a regular consumer’s and the techie’s point-of-view, by New York Times’ David Pogue.

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

Image by: curiouslee

The post EcoMeme: Can Cloud Computing Have a Green Lining? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Are Americans optimistic about the environment, ignorant or just plain lazy? Are they fatigued from all the “green” messaging and cause marketing out there? Or are they just complacent? A recent Gallup poll has shown that “over time, Americans’ concerns about environmental problems have generally declined.”

That’s hard to believe when there’s more environmental damage caused by Americans and more news about this available to us than ever before.

Just this week, ships are avoiding their normal cargo routes so that they can keep burning dirty fuel and skirt new air pollution laws around California.

And across the country, residents in the watershed areas of Skaneateles and Otisco lakes in New York are fighting a bill that would permit “hydrofracking” – a natural gas mining method that’s destructive to ecosystems and freshwater – on their private lands.

These examples are both driven by economic concerns. The shippers don’t want to pay fines or spend money on improved rigs. New York’s cash-starved state government is considering a bill that will bring taxpayer dollars to the state, with mining jobs and corporate real estate deals to replace low profit farms that are on some of that private property now.

Making matters worse, state budgets for environmental programs have been slashed, so even government agencies are holding out a tin cup or soliciting donations to support their good green work. In Atlanta, the House just passed a bill that would allow their own Department of Natural Resources to conduct fundraising through a non-profit to make up for a smaller slice of the taxpayer money pie.

At least defense budgets are also feeling the pinch.

If a 20-year low in levels of environmental concern wasn’t totally caused by money problems, Gallup suggested optimism may be to blame; Americans believe the environment is improving.

Basic Reading:

“Global warming concerns have ebbed and flowed, dipping to the lowest point since 1997. They’ve fallen precipitously since 2007, from 41% who worry ‘a great deal’ to 28%. Of eight [key environmental] issues, Americans now worry the least about global warming and the most about drinking-water pollution, which has often been a top concern.” – via USA Today

“Thanks in large part to partisan bickering and scandals such as Snowpocalypse and ClimateGate, confusion over global warming has reached a fevered pitch. At the same time, the economic slump is swallowing the public’s attention. What we may be witnessing is an endemic shift in prioritization, which raises the question: What, if anything, can instill a renewed sense of purpose?” – Mother Jones

“Climate hasn’t yet become as partisan an issue as, say, health care and taxes. But it’s getting there.” – How Republicans Learned to Reject Climate Change via NPR

Further Resources:

A debate over cause marketing fatigue – how many messages will consumers care about? – AdAge

“‘Do not wait for extraordinary circumstances to do good action; try to use ordinary situations.’ Jean Paul Richter. It seems that we humans are caught in the crushing curl of our own giant wave of trash. A long, sad and glorious tradition of using and dumping that spans the entirety of our time on earth…” – SuperEco.com

Ohio air quality officials complain the EPA is “trying to make us do too much too quickly,” on cutting smog – Cleveland.com

Are American Students Lazy? – InsideHigherEd.com

According to an EPA report, our air is getting cleaner relative to population growth and gross domestic product increases.

Image: rolands.lakis

The post EcoMeme: Optimism vs. Laziness appeared first on EcoSalon.

St. Patricks’ Day this week turned cities green literally – from landmarks to libations. But how green have major metro areas around the U.S. been throughout the year? The American Cities Business Journal group has released a new study on the matter.

Their inaugural Green Cities Index examined 43 U.S. cities, and ranked them based on 20 criteria encompassing residents’ environmental behavior, cities’ use or abuse of land and water, and presence of a variety of environment related projects and industries. The Green Cities Index 2010 survey results have been hot in the blogosphere ever since, with bloggers and residents bragging or bummed about their scores.

Portland topped the Green Cities Index 2010, with San Francisco in a close second place, Honolulu at third followed by Austin and Boston. The new study’s rankings fell in line with related studies by the Natural Resources Defense Council, and by Popular Science. But not exactly.

Surprising Strengths

Green Cities Index 2010 gave areas lacking environmental credibility overall some surprising points. Houston, one of the most traffic-choked cities in the U.S., held the top spot for Energy Star rated facilities, saving it from a much lower score.

Meanwhile, Albany ranked in the top ten on this list, though traditional manufacturing plants have caused severe pollution there for years. The city’s high score was influenced by Albany’s top score for “green jobs.”

At least the presence of more green jobs per capita in the area indicates the promise of a sea change.

It ain’t easy being green…

How important are green aspects of a city to the quality of life there? We think entirely important. That’s why we’re surprised that Green Cities Index 2010 chart topper Portland did not rank so highly in a separate happiness survey, the Gallup Healthways Well-Being Index which was released last month. The happiness study examined 162 cities, and Portland came in at 59. (That compares indirectly to 16th place on a 43-city list like Green Cities.)

Greensboro, North Carolina which came in dead last on the Green Cities Index, with the worst ranking for sprawl and its result, carbon emissions per capita, ranked 97th on the well-being index, which would put it at about 25th on a list of 43.

While there’s no apples-to-apples comparison between the studies, it’s worth asking: why aren’t the greenest cities always the happiest? Where does your city rank, and how happy are you?

Basic reading:

“A few hundred miles up the Ohio River from Cincinnati, Pittsburgh sits as a shining example of sustainability. After decades of working to clean its smoky skies and polluted waterways, the Steel City also has become a model for green building and sustainable design…” – A news feature discussing the reasons why Cincinnati Business Journal decided to launch its Green Cities Index

“Nine of the 10 cities that fare best on ‘life evaluation,’ assessments of life now and expectations in five years, boast a major university, a big military installation or a state Capitol – institutions that presumably provide some insulation from recession.” – A news feature breaking down a Gallup study of how happy people are in American cities, via USA Today

“If you want to be good to the environment, stay away from it…” From a 2009 study on Suburban vs. City living by Edward L. Glaeser

“No Northwest city is yet close to the destination of sustainability: carbon neutrality; widely shared prosperity; stable populations in strong communities; educational and economic opportunity for all; hyper-efficient use of natural resources; zero-pollution industries; and low-stuff, high-satisfaction lives.” – a different assessment of green cities from the Vancouver, B.C. news site, The Tyee

Further Resources:

News from OregonLive.com about the lack of trees in an otherwise green city, Portland: “Green Portland Isn’t Green Enough”

An Environmental Protection Agency air quality report

For contrast, a news report on air quality in Islamabad

A Greenbang.com story about London’s aim to imitate Copenhagen, Europe’s greenest city

A blog post calling for public transit support in Nashville, and referencing its low ranking on Green Cities Index 2010

Image Credit: Keith Skelton

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

The post EcoMeme: Green City, Happy City? 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.

Facebook is the second largest website in the US and the default social network of many environmental activists, where they (ok, we) go to develop supportive networks, raise awareness and funds for good causes. It’s also a platform for some excellent, environmental-fundraising games like Lil’ Green Patch (acquired by social games company Playdom in 2009) and Sea Garden (a MobScience game).

Obviously the environmental community, on and off Facebook, felt betrayed when the social media leader, in late January, announced its plans to build a data center in Prineville, Oregon that will be contrarily LEED-gold certified, yet run on coal power.

Yes, coal – that’s lump in your stocking, fine particles in the air and lungs, carbon dioxide-emitting coal.

Facebook’s data center electricity provider in Oregon will be PacifiCorp., a utility that is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, and generates most of its power from coal according to reports by SearchDataCenter.

The information and communications technology sector, according to Gartner research, is already as bad as and quickly surpassing the aviation industry in terms of global CO2 emissions. Why would Facebook – which has enjoyed a reputation as a game changer, and innovator – make the ICT sector worse, by going with the fuel that the Natural Resources Defense Council identifies as a top source of mercury pollution in the U.S., and a health threat to all who live near coal power plants?

End users do like free, or ad-sponsored Facebook. And coal power remains cheaper than cleaner alternatives like natural gas, or hydroelectric power (which has its own problems including damaging fish populations and rivers). But Facebook has said in a series of interviews that it focused on building an efficient data center, rather than the source of power it will use. We’re surprised an industry leader thought one good thing was good enough.

Is it unreasonable to ask Facebook to offer its services free to end users, but to buy more expensive, green power? Or, given their lack of environmental responsibility on this one, would you be willing to abandon your Facebook profile entirely?

Basic Reading:

“Criticism from Greenpeace and Change.org has attracted national attention within the information technology industry, catching Facebook off guard. ‘This has been a big learning experience for us,’ said Facebook spokeswoman Kathleen Loughlin. ‘We’re six years old. We’ve never owned a data center before. We’ve never owned land before…The energy source is one factor,’ Loughlin said, ‘but how we’re going to use that energy is another equally important, if not more important, factor to consider.'” A news feature by Mike Rogoway for The Oregonian

“After having rented out data center space in Silicon Valley and elsewhere for years, Facebook is now building its own data center in scenic Prineville, located in central Oregon. It’s a symbolic step for the company, which started out on an $80/month shared server just under six years ago.” – An InsideFacebook article detailing some of the efficient features planned for the company’s new data center

“For the first time Facebook will have its own facility but unlike Google or Microsoft, which both built data centers in the same area running off hydroelectric power, Facebook’s facility will be powered by dirty coal…” – An anti-coal petition from Change.org to Facebook’s CEO, with about 8,000 signatures as of Feb. 25, 2010

“The only truly green data centers are the ones running on renewable energy…Given the massive amounts of electricity that even energy-efficient data centers consume to run computers, backup power units, and power related cooling equipment, the last thing we need to be doing is building them in places where they are increasing demand for dirty coal-fired power.” – GreenPeace press officer Daniel Kessler via a HuffingtonPost op-ed

Further Resources:

“Coal accounts for a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide,” reported in the New York Times‘ Green Inc. blog

A story on the waste problems created by coal power plants in B’More Green

A round-up of some of the green IT practices and technologies used by tech giants including Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook from Earth2Tech

Ironically, last April, Intel called for users to submit ideas via Facebook video submission about How to Green Data Centers, via Treehugger

A “clean coal” debunking site ThisIsReality.org that includes a public service announcement ad created by the Coen brothers

Image: Nick Perla

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and trends by EcoSalon writer and columnist Lora Kolodny.

The post EcoMeme: Facebook Under Fire for Coal Powered Data Center appeared first on EcoSalon.

A perfect media storm blew in for the week of Fat Tuesday.

First came an impassioned TED speech by Jamie Oliver challenging Americans to solve our obesity epidemic through food and nutrition education and more excellent cooking.

Then came New York City’s Fashion Week with its requisite news of models getting fired from runway gigs for allegedly “being fat” at size puny.

In parallel, there was a huge debate around the emotional outbursts, each in 140-character Twitter format, by Kevin Smith the actor and filmmaker who was kicked off of a Southwest airlines flight this week for being too large and a “safety” concern.

One of the milder tweets he offered: “Wanna tell me I’m too wide for the sky? Totally cool. But fair warning, folks: IF YOU LOOK LIKE ME, YOU MAY BE EJECTED FROM @SOUTHWESTAIR.”

Obesity-haters on Twitter and comment boards web-wide suggested it was fair for airlines like Southwest to kick Smith (a.k.a. Silent Bob) off a flight if, in their estimation, a passenger was too large to fit in a single seat, and no other seat was available. Others sided with Kevin Smith but wondered if a “fat tax,” which essentially punishes people who stress the healthcare system and food supply, is worth considering.

An informal survey on Hunch.com of 12,000 site visitors showed that – rather unsympathetically – people who aren’t fat are more likely to support airlines’ charging fat people for two tickets, if they can’t fit into one seat as opposed to offering a wider seat, or two for the price of one.

If you’re fit, would you pass the buck to the obese? If you’re fat, would the tax help motivate you to lose weight by eating less, or healthier (and presumably more sustainable) foods?

Study up on all sides of the argument for and against fat taxes on everything from plane tickets to sugary foods with the links and resources here.

BASIC READING:

“Daniel Engber has likened fat to height. ‘How fat you are has a lot more to do with your genes than with your behavior,’ he argue[s]. ‘As much as 80 percent of the variation in human body weight can be explained by differences in our DNA. (Your height is similarly heritable.)’…Instances of radical, lasting weight loss are exceedingly rare. Diet and exercise schemes tend to yield only minor effects over the long term…” – A post by William Saletan for Slate comparing the tall to the fat.

“The idea of a special tax on soda, similar to those on tobacco, gasoline and alcoholic beverages, is attracting more interest. Advocates of a tax note that sugared beverages are the No. 1 source of calories in the American diet, representing 7 percent of the average person’s caloric intake, according to government surveys, and up to 10 percent for children and teenagers. ‘What you want,’ says Kelly Brownell, director of Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, ‘is to reverse the fact that healthy food is too expensive and unhealthy food is too cheap, and the soda tax is a start. Unless food marketing changes, it’s hard to believe that anything else can work.'” – A feature by Mark Bittman in the New York Times

“In Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled that obese and disabled people cannot be forced to buy a second seat on flights….Bill Fabrey, a director at the Council on Size and Weight Discrimination, a non-profit group that advocates for larger people said airlines should provide some bigger seats to accommodate people of size, just as many cinemas and theatres had increased their seats. ‘People come in all shapes and sizes,’ he said. ‘Judging someone by the size of their body, not health level, comes down to discrimination against a class of people.'” – A feature story in The National

FURTHER RESOURCES:

A post by BigFatDeal Blog that aggregates Kevin Smith’s Tweets about “flying while fat.”

A Web M.D. article about a new survey that says 8 of 10 adult males will be fat, not of healthy weight, by 2020

A story in the Syracuse Post-Standard about New Yorkers’ support of a “fat tax” of a kind, on sugary sodas.

A News-Herald story about curbing childhood obesity through more environmentally sound nutrition and standards for food in schools, which is one alternative to levying a fat tax against the obese.

A story by Tom Fudge for KPBS about new research that shows obesity is partly determined by the place where you live.

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco trends, and tech highlights by Lora Kolodny.

Image: Alan Cleaver

The post EcoMeme: Fat Taxes, Too Cruel or Overdue? appeared first on EcoSalon.