Carbon Neutral for a day

Want to be carbon neutral for a day? Follow this link to Brighter Planet's One Day Carbon Neutral gift.

I've written about Brighter Planet before -- the 350 Blogger Challenge. I've still got the badge to the left. This new campaign will offset 136 pounds of carbon in your name, the equivalent of being carbon neutral for one day. Follow the link above (or on the new badge to the left). It's limited to 25 people on a first come, first serve basis. Although I've been spotty with new posts lately, I'll be sending this one around, so don't delay!

While you're signing up for the free gift, make sure to click on the link for tips on how to conserve during the holidays.

Green Thanksgiving

I may be a little late on this one considering most people probably already have their plans for Thursday set in stone, but no matter -- have a green Thanksgiving!

Here's the thing about Thanksgiving: it's a giant mass of contradictions. Thanksgiving has all sorts of lovely myths surrounding its origin. I won't go into all of them here, but let's just say it wasn't all party-time for the Pilgrims and the Native Americans. Although Thanksgiving was originally religious, the day has evolved into secular American holiday. And of course you have the most basic contradiction, the name "Thanks-giving" is given to a day of almost universal gluttony.

Despite all that, we love Thanksgiving. Family, fun, good food -- you can't beat it. So how do we enjoy all the pleasures of Thanksgiving without succumbing to the wastefulness and self-indulgence?

I've pulled together a couple of good resources here for going green on Thanksgiving. My family gathering will be somewhere between 35 and 40 people, and will probably emit a carbon footprint the size of Bonnaroo 2008. How do you even get your arms around all of that? Check out a few of the links here:

12 tips for a Green Thanksgiving
How to Go Green: Thanksgiving Day
Green Thanksgiving - Eco-Friendly Tip

It's no surprise that all the usual suspects are there: eat local and organic, reduce/reuse/recycle, reduce meat consumption, compost your leftovers, etc. Really the most important and simple step might be to think about what Thanksgiving could and should mean, and take that to heart when you're planning your feast.

Happy Thanksgiving!

An Eye on Midnight Regulations

A Midnight Regulation are regulations pushed through in the last three months of an outgoing administration. President W. won't be the first outgoing president to push through Midnight Regulations, but he's legacy could be among the most damaging. According to this ABC News story, the outgoing administration is poised to push through more midnight regulations than previous administrations.

In the case of the Bush administration, what we could be faced with are de-regulations, many aimed at removing environmental protections. Check out this synopsis, courtesy of the New Yorker:

The Administration has proposed are rules that would: make it harder for the government to limit workers’ exposure to toxins, eliminate environmental review from decisions affecting fisheries, and ease restrictions on companies that blow up mountains to get at the coal underneath them. Other midnight regulations in the works include rules to allow “factory farms” to ignore the Clean Water Act, rules making it tougher for employees to take family or medical leave, and rules that would effectively gut the Endangered Species Act.

The Bush Administration wants to leave a legacy, and considering what they've done up until now, that's a scary thought!

Green Expo Here in Boston

The Greenbuild International Conference and Expo, a three-day conference run by the non-profit US Green Building Council, kicked off yesterday in Boston, with 26,000 attendees.  By comparison, in 2002 there were just 4,000 attendees. (Nice work, Boston!)

Greenbuild's theme for 2008 is "Revolutionary Green: Innovations for Global Sustainability."  The focus is on social equality and bringing people into the green movement.  If you get a chance and you're in Boston, check it out! 

Find good food

I'm sure all of you out there in internet land are focusing full-time on the presidential election. As am I. But you may need to take a break between now and the end of the day tomorrow to get something to eat. And when you do, I'd like to suggest you check out this website.

It's the Eat Well Guide. You can use the website to search for organic and sustainable food in your area (as long as you live in the U.S. and A. or Canada).

I found butchers, caterers, farmers' markets, restaurants, stores, co-ops, CSAs -- all told there were 139 listings within a 20 miles radius. It even has a "plan your trip" feature that helps you find the best local/sustainable/organic food even when you're on the road.

It's easy-to-use, and you may be surprised at some of the places that serve organic food. Happy eating!

The Story of Stuff

I've been away from the blog for the last week, so things have been quiet around here. But that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of interesting stuff to talk about. Today I'd like to share a video: The Story of Stuff.

Ok, the video might seem a bit like something you might be shown in a high school by the substitute teacher. But it's great information, and it's presented in an accessible and interesting way. Our friendly narrator, one Ms. Annie Leonard, guides us through a tour of our "system of stuff." Extraction to production to distribution to consumption to disposal. The video breaks down each step in the life of our material goods, and argues against the linear system that begins with using up natural resources and ends with waste disposed in a landfill. We have finite resources, says Ms. Leonard, and we can't afford to continue running a linear system on a finite planet. Eventually, everything will end up in a landfill! The solution? We need a system based on sustainability and equity, not consumption and disposal.

All right, enough of my synopsis -- check out the video for yourself. At 20:00 minutes running time, it's longer than your typical YouTube-length clip. In fact, it seems tailor-made for twenty minutes of watching, followed by ten minutes of answering questions on a worksheet, and twenty minutes of student-teacher discussion. Be that as it may, it's worth checking out. And if you are a teacher, I can't imagine an easier lesson than one based on The Story of Stuff.

Dangerous Trends

Our current economic crisis is scary for a lot of reasons. The wide-ranging effects of such a massive shake-up of our financial system will be felt for years to come. Since no one really fully understands how we are going to fix the crisis (experts don't even know what is going to happen on a day-to-day basis), it's impossible to say with any kind of certainty what kind of societal changes we are going to see in the coming years. How long will this crisis last? What kind of changes will we all have to make to see this through? Health care, education, infrastructure -- what will our priorities be and where will we cut corners?

As you might guess, I'm extra sensitive to how the financial crisis will impact spending on clean energy projects, from both the public and private sectors. At a certain level, economic strain should encourage the development of new green technologies. With soaring oil prices, it makes sense to invest in homegrown, innovative solutions to our energy problems. American businessmen are always looking for new opportunity, especially when the economy begins to stagnate. A recession should stimulate innovation, forcing businesses to find that strategic edge. And throughout the course of this election season, we've seen promises from both candidates for an intensified investment in green jobs and green technologies. Taken all together, an economic slow-down could provide the appropriate environment for a green technology boom and an explosion in green business.

Unfortunately, we are faced with the prospect of something much deeper and more lasting than an economic slow-down, or even your garden-variety cyclical recession. The current economic crisis has the potential to be long-lasting. It may well affect the very foundations of our economy. If things become dire enough, will it start to negatively effect the market for green innovation?

And what about oil? A few months ago, when we seemed to be stuck in a simple slow-down, oil prices seemed to be on a never-ending rise. But since financial institutions began falling like so many Wall Street dominoes, oil prices have done a complete about-face. If they continue to free fall, will there be less incentive to invest in alternative fuels?

We are already starting to see indications that investment in clean energy projects has begun to dry up. There is an article in today's Wall Street Journal that says the combined effects of a credit crunch and a drop in oil prices has been an open-handed slap of reality in the face of start-up renewable energy companies. (Unfortunately, the WSJ still has subscriber-only content on their website, so what I've linked to here is just the preview.) The Washington Post ran a similar article yesterday that looks at the inverse relation between the price of oil and the demand for new forms of clean energy.

So what's to be done? Global Warming isn't going to wait for the U.S. financial markets to right themselves. And we know that we are already way behind in the race to save our planet. We don't have the time or the luxury to let this thing sort itself out. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman continues to argue for a price floor for oil: the government takes oil to keep the price at $3.00 a gallon. But will the next President have the strength to demand such a potentially unpopular policy?

There are no real answers at the moment, because we don't know where all this is headed. As individuals, we can use the power of our consumer dollar to support green companies and technologies. This means that we have to educate ourselves and learn about new options and innovations. I'll do my best here to draw attention to the best information available on green products. The payback for educating ourselves is that the consumer dollar is extremely effective. And we can support politicians who continue to push for investments in green technology, and hold those politicians accountable for their policy decisions.

Register. To. Vote.

Voting is a privilege, not a right, and if you don't exercises your privileges, you may lose them. Today is the last day to register to vote in Massachusetts. You can find all the information you need on voting in MA at the Sec. of State's website.

If you are not in MA, Google has a great feature linked to their maps that helps you find the relevant voter registration in your area. You can also register at Headcount.org.

Please do not tell me that your vote doesn't matter, or that you live in a blue/red state that's already voting for Obama/McCain anyway. That's missing the point, and I might kick you someplace really sensitive and it will hurt a lot (insert smiley face here).

Nothing could be "greener" than voting.

Turn Your Lights Out

Have you seen that commercial featuring Anderson Cooper about his Planet In Peril show? If you've been watching the Major League Baseball playoffs, I am sure you have. The docuementary apparently follows Anderson Cooper around the world as he explores the effects of climate change and how humans are coping (or not coping) with these effects. It seems like an interesting show, even if I can't seem to get over the fact that Anderson Cooper is a Vanderbilt.

In addition to advertising for the documentary, the commercial/Cooper also asks us to take the Sharp Lights Out challenge. I found the entire commercial to be hectic and difficult to understand, which either means I'm getting old or it wasn't a great commercial. Regardless, I found the Sharp Lights Out challenge website and now things are much clearer.

The challenge is to get people who are watching Game Four of the ALCS to turn off their lights for the duration of the game. It's an attempt to save a huge chunk of energy (I believe "chunk" is the appropriate scientific term here). If you go to the website and sign up for the challenge, you are also entered into a contest to win a Sharp AQUOS ® LCD TV.

There is an obvious contradiction going on here: you aren't really saving energy by watching television for 4+ hours. And your reward is another television, and although I don't know how much energy that particular model sucks, I highly doubt it's carbon neutral.

Cynicism aside, though, it does promote awareness of the importance of conservation (and conveniently the Planet in Peril show and the Sharp AQUOS ® LCD TV, too). Hopefully a lot of people do turn off their lights during the game. Maybe there will even be some people who do it for the sake of conservation, and not for the LCD TV carrot. Anyway, if people do indeed save some energy, that's a good thing. Awareness is always positive.

And it got me thinking -- maybe I'll have my own challenge. I'll call it the Turn-Off-All-Your-Lights-And-Television-And-Read-By-Candlelight-For-One-Night Challenge. I'm not sure what I'd give away as a prize, but I'm guessing it would save more energy per-person than the Sharp Lights Out challenge!

Recommended interview of the day

Amidst all this blabbing about the election, I thought I should take a moment to post a great interview with Thomas Friedman. The NYTimes columnist has been very active in discussing the importance of an energy technology revolution in the United States. He has a new book on the Green Revolution, Hot, Flat and Crowded, that I look forward to reading.

Take a moment to read this interview he gave recently. My favorite part is in response to a question about the famous RNC "Drill, Baby, Drill!" chant:

I mean, it is as if on the eve of the IT revolution, on the eve of the birth of the Internet and the PC, we are out there pounding the table for more IBM Selectric typewriters. Carbon paper, baby, carbon paper! That’s nuts. There’s only one mantra for America, and that’s “Innovate, baby, innovate!”

Debate Review

As I anticipated, the Presidential debate on Tuesday did a superficial job of addressing issues of climate change. All in all, it was to be expected, considering the length of the debate, the pre-determined questions, and the overwhelming immediacy of the financial crisis. Unfortunately, we seem incapable of choosing based on anything other than a made-for-television-entertainment debate. We're conditioned to absorb information in smaller and smaller bites/bytes, and there is no real platform for serious discourse.

Fortunatley, there was one direct question, courtesy of Ms. Ingrid Jackson, on climate change. The answers were vague, as you may expect when the candidates are only given two minutes. Surprisingly, McCain's answer to the direct question of climate change didn't talk much about off-shore drilling. Instead he focused on the virtues of nuclear power. He even managed to pronounce it correctly. Said McCain:

What's the best way of fixing it? Nuclear power. Sen. Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that... I was on Navy ships that had nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is safe, and it's clean, and it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.

I don't doubt that more nuclear power plants are in our future, although despite McCain's assurances, there remains very real concerns about waste disposal. This was about as concrete as the Republican got on the subject. He did mention that it was a part of an overall strategy including "alternative fuels, wind, tide, solar, natural gas, clean coal technology." The specifics on these were non-existent.

Obama, for his part, was a bit more concrete in his answer, although not exactly specific. He said:

I've called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years. Our goal should be, in 10 year's time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil. And we can do it. Now, when JFK said we're going to the Moon in 10 years, nobody was sure how to do it, but we understood that, if the American people make a decision to do something, it gets done...

We're going to have to come up with alternatives, and that means that the United States government is working with the private sector to fund the kind of innovation that we can then export to countries like China that also need energy and are setting up one coal power plant a week.

My favorite moment of the debate came when the candidates had to say what sacrifices they would ask the American people to make. McCain used his time to talk about a spending freeze and earmarks and eliminating government programs. It wasn't his best moment. Obama's answer, on the other hand, was a highlight for me:

Each and every one of us can start thinking about how can we save energy in our homes, in our buildings. And one of the things I want to do is make sure that we're providing incentives so that you can buy a fuel efficient car that's made right here in the United States of America, not in Japan or South Korea, making sure that you are able to weatherize your home or make your business more fuel efficient. And that's going to require effort from each and every one of us.

Climate change is usually framed as an economy issue in these debates, and in many ways that is ok. Hopefully economic concerns will help drive the move to a greener way of life. But this was the only time we heard about individual responsibility. Perhaps Americans don't want to sacrifice. I remember Obama being openly mocked for his suggestion that we all keep our tires inflated. That was a low moment in the campaign. Maybe now, in the midst of a truly cripply financial crisis, Americans will be more open to the idea of sacrifice. We may not have a choice anymore.

Will they talk about the environment?

Tonight is the second of three debates between Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. After hearing precious little in the first debate, which was in fact supposed to be on the subject of foreign policy, and getting only a token nod in the VP debate, I'm curious to see if there will be any talk about environmental issues tonight.

You might ask, quite fairly, why the candidates should discussion the environment. The economy is without a doubt the most pressing issue on everyone's mind, and rightly so. I expect (hope?) that there will be some detailed discussion about economic issues, and if we're lucky, perhaps we'll even hear how each candidate might try to solve these problems. I also expect a healthy dose of foreign policy discussion, and as always a devolution into party talking points about health care and taxes and lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

Where does the environment fit into all this? Without a doubt it will surface as a secondary issue in a couple of places. Obama will probably talk about creating new jobs in alternative energy sectors. McCain might relate his support for off-shore drilling to reinforce his stance that America needs to break her reliance on foreign oil. If there are direct questions about climate change, look for similar answers to the ones we got from Sarah P. and Joe B.: "We need to drill right now," and "Let's invest in clean energies."

Keep in mind that this is a town-hall style debate. Basically, that means that 80 or so uncommitted voters (let me just say, I am honestly wondering who is still uncommitted, and I can't imagine that these people are the best choices to be asking questions of such importance, because an uncommitted voter at this point either hasn't been paying attention or lacks the ability to understand the issues... anyway... ) will be packed into a room to directly ask questions of the candidates. If we are lucky, we'll get one token question on climate change in a debate that is sure to be dominated by a discussion of "Wall Street and Main Street."

If it does indeed unfold this way, it will be a shame, because the environment really is an essential component of the challenges we are facing. Talk a look at Thomas Friedman's article from last week on greening the bailout package. Friedman's ideas, which echo what I've been writing about here (or maybe that's the other way around!) are about rebuilding our economy by sparking an energy technology revolution. By focusing on a new industry, an essential industry for the next century, America might be able to turn this thing around. We could create jobs in this country, and train our workers to do these jobs. That's how you rebuild the economy -- by relying on an industry where a real, actual product is created.

"You can’t base a national economy on credit cards. But you can base it on solar panels, wind turbines, smart biofuels and a massive program to weatherize every building and home in America."

I fear, though, that the discussion will not get this deep. We will hear about the economy in terms of mud-slinging, finger-pointing, blame-assigning, and the Dow will continue to tumble head over heels. Any chance I'm wrong about this? We'll find out soon enough.

Vice Presidential Debate and the Environment

Before the VP debate kicked off last night, I had made the decision to tune out. I wasn't going to bother watching -- what more could I learn at this point? I know where the candidates stand on every issue. I know that some candidates have a completely different ideology than I do, and that no amount of arguing and/or facts will convince people that their ideology is wrong or dangerous. I wasn't going to learn anything new, except what some CNN Max Headroom-type pundits thought about the proceedings.

I watched anyway.

If you made a similar promise to yourself to skip the debate, but unlike me you actually followed through on that promise, I am going to give you the chance to check it out anyway. The whole misery loves company thing. The entire debate is on the YouTube. Do I recommend watching it? Not really, but there it is, if you're feeling masochistic.

You can also read the transcript of the debate. I will warn you, however, that the transcript doesn't fully convey certain folksy/cutesy moments. What the transcript does, though, is give us another chance to look at certain opinions. I'll focus right here on just the environmental issues and how the candidates addressed them. Energy policy was talked about several times during the debate (both candidates had trouble answering questions, so energy policy often popped up in answers to semi-/completly un- related questions.) The moderator, Gwen Ifill, also asked them specifically about climate change.

Governor Palin's central talking point was "energy independence." I think it's fair to say that domestic drilling is at the heart of this argument, although she did mention "alternative forms of energy." Her argument might best be summed up as, "Yes, we need alternative forms of energy. But what is really important is domestic oil production."

When we talk about energy, we have to consider the need to do all that we can to allow this nation to become energy independent. It's a nonsensical position that we are in when we have domestic supplies of energy all over this great land. And East Coast politicians who don't allow energy-producing states like Alaska to produce these, to tap into them, and instead we're relying on foreign countries to produce for us.

Senator Biden basically took the inverse position. He also mentions dometic drilling, but that is not his focus. The Biden argument sounds like this: "Yes, we need domestic oil production. But what is really important is alternative forms of energy."

Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it. China is building one to three new coal-fired plants burning dirty coal per week. It's polluting not only the atmosphere but the West Coast of the United States. We should export the technology by investing in clean coal technology. We should be creating jobs. John McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, I guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill. Drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to begun to be drilled.

Riveting stuff, to be sure. It appears that an Obama-Biden administration would be much better on environmental issues, although the level of discourse that's occurring here doesn't inspire much confidence that either ticket is a green ticket.

The direct question on climate change brought more nuggets of intellectualism. Palin says:

Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real. I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet. But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

Forget for a moment that she refers to herself as "the nation's only Arctic state," and that she has confused cause and effect when she says, "I'm not one to attribute every... activity of man to the changes in the climate." If you don't think that climate change is man-made, why would you worry about man-made solutions? Biden's response addressed this point:

I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Governor Palin and Joe Biden. If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.

Are there any conclusions we can draw from this debate? Sure, I can think of a few:
1) Both parties try to appeal to supporters of domestic drilling and supporters of alternative energy at the same time. While those two policies are not entirely mutually exclusive, it really doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that true environmental reform is coming soon.
2) Cause is essential. Your view of the cause of a problem profoundly impacts how you would go about solving that problem.
3) Don't listen to any Max Headroom pundits because they do not enhance your understanding of anything.

Finally, I think the next President will have no choice but to put energy/environmental policy front and center in his administration, so it's important to pay attention. But at the same time, it also inspires me to continue to do things in my own life. Doing the little things to be more environmentally conscious every day makes me less frustrated about the lack of real, intelligent discourse on what is such a majorly important issue.

Max Headroom -- Part of the best political team on television

Rise of the Green Surfer

Ok, let's say you're bored of reading about the collapsing economy and you need a distraction from the three-ring circus that is the presidential election. Naturally, you've already read all the posts in the Going Green Project archive, but perhaps you are still interested in reading about sustainable living.

Let me humbly offer a few suggestions that will keep you informed and entertained. There are countless web sites out there for the green web surfer, so this is just scratching the proverbial surface. These sites are all listed in the Green Links section, and they've all been tested, vetted, and approved by yours truly.

TreeHugger: quite simply, TreeHugger is the most comprehensive collection of green information out there. Don't be fooled by the name -- this web site isn't about patchouli. It has oodles of information, tips, and news. With over 30 posts every day, it's difficult to keep up.

Grist: Grist.org is a great source for environmental news and humor. They try to keep things engaging and interesting. At the same time, they have some of the most insightful, thoughtful, and piercing analysis of green and sustainable issues.

The Huffington Post Green: another vast collection of information about all things green. The Huffington Post Green, as you may imagine, tends to put a lot of their stories in a political context. This tendency will probably make you more or less likely to enjoy this web site, depending on your views about media spin.

Green Options: the Green Options web site is mostly a collection of blogs that offer commentary on a bunch of different subjects. They also offer a newsletter and discussion forums.

Lighter Footstep: dedicated to providing easy to follow tips for "Living Lightly." This site doesn't update their content as often as others, but I still check it out from time to time to see what they have to say.

EcoGeek: innovations that are saving the planet. If you're a tech geek who also happens to like the environment, this one's for you.

ecorazzi: and on the lighter side, you have the ecorazzi site. Wanna guess what this one focuses on? Yup, celebrity green gossip.

If you know of any green web sites that are not listed in the Green Links section, drop me a line and I'll check 'em out.

Small steps

Going green doesn't always seem simple. Sometimes just thinking about all the things that you are supposed to be doing is overwhelming. People live in the suburbs and have to drive to work every day and have a family to worry about and don't feel they can afford to rush out and buy all new green products. It's completely understandable that these people might start to feel guilty about not doing enough and just succumb to the realization that they'll never "reduce the family's carbon footprint" or be "green" enough.

Fortunately, there are very easy and very small things you can do to reduce your carbon footprint. The Ask Umbra page on Grist provides two simple steps that will make a real difference: air travel and eating meat. You can check out the facts on the Grist article; they make a compelling case. A couple of round trip vacations by plane will emit more CO2 than a year's worth of driving. And reducing the amount of meat that you eat, even one day a week, makes an enormous difference.

Think about how easy it would be to follow that second piece of advice. Pick one day of the week (how about Monday?) and have a meatless meal. You don't have to sign up for the PETA email newsletter (trust me, their emails are sent out with impressive frequency) and you don't have to watch any nightmare-inducing, Alec Baldwin-narrated videos on the state of the meat industry. Just pick one day, and skip the meat. Order the Eggplant Parm instead of the Chicken Parm. Get a salad for lunch; try out a new recipe for dinner. It really is easy, and I promise that you will not starve or waste away to nothing or suffer some horrible disease brought on by third-world level protein deficiency. All you that will happen is you will begin to reduce your footprint in a quantifiable way.

This blogger posts his adventures in what he calls "Occasional Vegetarianism." He has given up eating meat one day a week. Actually, that sounds like a punishment. Let's say this: for one day a week he is eating vegetarian meals. It's an opportunity to try new things, and that seems to me to be the best attitude to have.

So don't get down in the dumps about the things you cannot do. Nobody is perfect, and some people have to fly for business. But instead of feeling guilty about the things you can't do, concentrate on the things you can do. Take a few minutes to think about your habits, and identify the small steps that you can do.

All right, is that rah-rah enough for you? Good luck!

Raw food

Unfortunately the Boston Green Fest was a bit of a rain out today. Not officially, not that I know of, but it's difficult to slide away from work for an hour in the pouring rain. So I'll try to make it down tomorrow, although I hear that it's going to be raining even harder tomorrow. Cat and dogs, they say.

In the meantime, I wanted to write a quick review of Grezzo, the vegan raw food restaurant that I ate at last Saturday night. Located in the North End in Boston, Grezzo serves only organic, raw foods. By "raw" they mean food that is not heated over 112 degrees. Apparently heating foods above that temperature kills most of the healthiest enzymes, so they only serve "living" food. Obviously this restaurant doesn't need any sort of certification to assert their Green-ness! They don't use animal products of any kind, yeast, dairy, processed foods, etc. So what do they actually "cook" with? Fresh fruits and veggies, nuts, and seeds.

After that description, you may be wondering why anyone, besides maybe a family of squirrels, would go to such a place and pay top dollar. It's a fair question, and my answer is simple: in order to cook good food with such tight restrictions, you must be extremely creative. And the chefs at Grezzo are fantastically creative.

The appetizers were sliders. The patties were made of a carrot and nut mixed that was dehydrated, and there were heirloom tomato slices as "bread."For dinner I had a papya steak. Yeah, that is pretty much what it sounds like: a big piece of papaya. It was prepared with this wonderfully salty teriyaki sauce. I have no idea how they pull it off, but it was a filling meal that left me feeling light and satiated.

You can go to Grezzo for the organic and raw foods. You can also go because of the great selection of organic wine and beer. Those are great reasons, but the best argument I can make is that you will not find these dishes anywhere else in Boston. I respect the creativity that must go into the dishes, and the result is some incredibly unique and interesting food. It's a highly recommended experience.

Boston Green Fest

This weekend is the Boston Green Fest. The fest is taking place on City Hall Plaza Friday and Saturday, from 10am - 5pm each day. The event is billed as a Neighborhood Wake-Up Call. It's about community organizing, bringing people together to discuss issues, and spreading awareness.

There seems to be all sorts of activities over the course of the two days. I'd love to catch some of Dr. George Woodwell's talk. He's the former director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institure, and he speaks on Friday morning. I'm also curious to see what the solar energy workshops are all about.

I love that this event is focused on what people can accomplish, right now, in their own neighborhoods. Sometimes the specter of global warming can be quite intimidating. It's like the Nothing from The Neverending Story -- an abstract menace that affects our entire planet. That's why events like a Boston Green Fest are so valuable. People need to know that there are small things they can start doing right now to make a real difference.

I am planning on heading down to the Fest some time tomorrow during the day. I'm not sure what the event will actually be like, but I'd love to support the effort and see what kind of reaction it gets. If I can to spend some time over at the event tomorrow, I'll post my thoughts tomorrow afternoon. See you there!

Is this what Global warming looks like? Where is the Rockbiter when we need him? Does anyone even know what I am talking about right now?

350 Challenge

Check out the badge on the left-hand side of the blog: Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge. By posting the badge on my blog, Brighter Planet has agreed to offset 350 pounds of CO2 in my name. Why 350 pounds? It's an awareness campaign -- we can keep our planet healthy by keeping CO2 to under 350 parts per million in our atmosphere.

Brighter Planet is a Vermont organization that is dedicated to spreading awareness about climate change. They focus on educating people about how to take small steps in their own lives to promote sustainability. They offer conservation tips, carbon offsets, and ways to track your climate impact. I like their dedication to the idea that "small actions can lead to meaningful change." That idea is what drives this blog more than any other.

So now I have a lovely PDF of a certificate in my name for helping to fight climate change and for being personally responsible for offsetting 350 pounds of CO2! To celebrate, I took my out ATV and did doughnuts in the school parking lot until it ran out of gas. ;-)

I'm melting

I know what you're thinking: sure, that's a polar bear, but how come he isn't enjoy a refreshing bottle of coca-cola? Well perhaps it's because he doesn't have enough ice to keep his coke at a cool and refreshing temperature.


Alright, so this picture is really just an excuse for me to wonder why certain candidates on certain major party presidential tickets hate polar bears. I don't want to be too specific, so let's just call her S. Palin. No, wait, that's too obvious. How about Sarah P.?

Sarah P. is widely portrayed by her own party as a reformer and someone who will "stand up to big oil," except of course when she is working with big oil to reverse the listing of the polar bear as an endangered species.

Here are more gratuitous pictures of adorable polar bears that would most likely maul Sarah P. quite viciously if they had the chance.

Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?

I'd like to take a minor detour today to remember David Foster Wallace, one of the great contemporary American writers, who died of an apparent suicide over the weekend. Wallace's fiction broke new ground, from his sprawling novel Infinite Jest to his collections of short stories. However, it was his nonfiction essays that had the most profound effect on me. A sharp, and occasionally pompous, observer of American culture, Wallace's essays appeared in various magazines and were eventually anthologized in the collections A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again and Consider the Lobster.

The essay that provides the title for the second collection, Consider the Lobster, was published in 2004 for Gourmet magazine. Apparently given the task of traveling to Maine to cover the Maine Lobster Festival, Wallace instead turns the focus inward. He uses the Festival, featuring the world's largest lobster pot and a Main Eating Tent, to question his own eating habits. The essay winds through a discussion of the standard methods for eating and preparing lobster, basic crustacean neurology and biology, and questions of moral responsibility. In the end, Wallace asks us to ponder the question that forms that title of this post: Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?

Wallace does not profess to be a vegetarian, and certainly is not attempting to convert anyone to a particular viewpoint. He simply asks, why is the eating of other animals ok? Where do we draw the line and what are our moral obligations? He doesn't offer any conclusions, but asks for a deeper reflection from his reader.

I am writing today about Wallace in general and this essay in particular because it had a profound effect on my thinking. I choose to not eat meat for many reasons, but reading this essay was the first time I began to actually reexamine my own food choices. I think Wallace makes a compelling argument, not for vegetarianism, but for questioning our own behavior. As being a vegetarian, for me, is part of a commitment to going green, I decided that a short recognition of the influence of David Foster Wallace is both relevant and extremely important.

You can read the original essay in the Gourmet archives. I think you are best served by picking up the essay anthology, because the other essays are all stellar, and the book does a better job of handling the footnotes that are essential to his style.

I'll leave you with Wallace, in his own words:

In any event, at the Festival, standing by the bubbling tanks outside the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker, watching the fresh-caught lobsters pile over one another, wave their hobbled claws impotently, huddle in the rear corners, or scrabble frantically back from the glass as you approach, it is difficult not to sense that they’re unhappy, or frightened, even if it’s some rudimentary version of these feelings …and, again, why does rudimentariness even enter into it? Why is a primitive, inarticulate form of suffering less urgent or uncomfortable for the person who’s helping to inflict it by paying for the food it results in? I’m not trying to give you a PETA-like screed here—at least I don’t think so. I’m trying, rather, to work out and articulate some of the troubling questions that arise amid all the laughter and saltation and community pride of the Maine Lobster Festival. The truth is that if you, the Festival attendee, permit yourself to think that lobsters can suffer and would rather not, the MLF can begin to take on aspects of something like a Roman circus or medieval torture-fest.

Does that comparison seem a bit much? If so, exactly why? Or what about this one: Is it not possible that future generations will regard our own present agribusiness and eating practices in much the same way we now view Nero’s entertainments or Aztec sacrifices? My own immediate reaction is that such a comparison is hysterical, extreme—and yet the reason it seems extreme to me appears to be that I believe animals are less morally important than human beings;²⁰ and when it comes to defending such a belief, even to myself, I have to acknowledge that (a) I have an obvious selfish interest in this belief, since I like to eat certain kinds of animals and want to be able to keep doing it, and (b) I have not succeeded in working out any sort of personal ethical system in which the belief is truly defensible instead of just selfishly convenient.

Drill Here, Drill Now

I found this graph today on Treehugger, and felt it was telling enough to post it again here. You can also find the original graph on the Architecture 2030 website. Why is offshore drilling a scam? How long would it take before we would be drilling offshore? What would the effect be? Check it out.



According to the US Energy Information Administration, oil production from drilling offshore in the outer continental shelf wouldn't begin until around the year 2017. Once begun, it wouldn't reach peak production until about 2030 when it would produce only 200,000 barrels of oil per day (in yellow above). This would supply a meager 1.2% of total US annual oil consumption (just 0.6% of total US energy consumption). And, the offshore oil would be sold back to the US at the international rate, which today is $106 a barrel. So, the oil produced by offshore drilling would not only be a "drop in the bucket", it would be expensive, which translates to "no relief at the pump".

Dine Green

I love a good burrito -- who doesn't? That's why one of my favorite places to go for lunch during the workday is Boloco. Boloco is a Boston-based company that serves mostly burritos. They're hearty and filling and cheap. Combine the burritos with their excellent choice of smoothies, and you've got the perfect lunch spot.

Not surprisingly, I also like Boloco because of their attempts at reducing waste. The average restaurant produces 275 pounds of waste a day, so it's great to see a company that is trying to do things differently. Recycling bins are displayed prominently in every location, and detailed information is displayed about all their products. Every Boloco posts easy-to-read information on what to put in the recycle bin and what is trash. They've phased out their Styrofoam cups and replaced them with biodegradable cornstarch cups. They're very up front about all this information, and it's nice to see a company making a commitment to waste reduction.

Yesterday, as I was entering the Boloco near my office, I noticed a sticker on the window for the Green Restaurant Association.



The GRA website has a wealth of information about their mission for creating a sustainable restaurant industry, and even offer to assist restaurants with the implementation of their guidelines. They maintain a list of endorsed products, and they even have a Sustainability video for the visual learners among us!

Unfortunately the list of restaurants that have been certified by the GRA is still small, but let's hope it can continue to grow it's membership. And for our part as consumers, we can keep an eye out for GRA certified restaurants. If that means more burritos for lunch, well that's just fine by me!

Green design

I love when I find a new website or project that promotes sustainable living, especially when it's on a subject about which I don't know a whole lot. It's even more exciting when then project is the brainchild of a friend.

So imagine my delight when I had time last week to check out my friend's new website, called Rethink Design. The website is geared towards promoting sustainable graphic design. Rethink Design provides valuable information on everything that graphic designers needs to know: printing, ink, recycled materials, green printers, tips for planning, and much more. The Project Sizer is one of my favorite features -- reducing paper waste through simple and intelligent planning!

If you know a graphic designer, please forward them the website. I think any designer would be interested to learn about the extent of their impact on the environment.

On a more general note, it's encouraging to me that there are more and more sites like this that provide information for going green in such a specific area. Whether it is your job, you hobby, or just a simple daily habit, there are so many opportunities to reduce your negative impact. Sometimes it can be a challenge to go green, but sometimes it can be as easy as using the Project Sizer to reduce your paper waste.

Good work Yvette!

Property owner going green?

You may remember that I've tried to figure out how to reduce the amount of paper that I use in the office. This led me to the unfortunate discovery that the paper I'd been throwing in the recycle bins seemed to be ending up with the trash. I later found out that the owner of the building in which I work is the generically named Equity Office Properties Trust, and that they are in fact the largest property owner in Boston. Although they're supposed to be collecting recycling in my office, it seems that the large blue recycling bin on wheels only circulates on the fourth floor. As I work on the third floor of the building, we for some reason only see the grayish-black trash bin on wheels.

However, I was informed that Equity Office Properties Trust was embarking on a new initiative to improve recycling in all their buildings. Can you blame me for assuming that I was getting the brush-off?

It turns out, though, that the esteemed Equity Office Properties Trust is in fact embarking upon their own quest to go green, as reported last week in the Boston Globe.

The city's largest property owner - spurred by high energy prices and rising demand from tenants - is seeking "green" certification for all of its office buildings, marking a major milestone in Mayor Thomas M. Menino's push to make Boston the nation's most environmentally friendly city.

Now I certainly applaud the effort if Equity Office Properties Trust is indeed gong green. Unfortunately, I am rather cynical of companies with overly generic names. I am also suspicious of the motives of Mayor Menino. And of course, my recycle bin (which I never use anymore) is still dumped in with the rest of the trash.

I am on the inside, though, and if Equity Office Properties Trust does follow through with their much publicized effort, I'll be the first to congratulate them. But until I see the large blue recycling bin on wheels make the long journey down to the third floor, I reserve the right to be suspicious.

Trying to move on...

Yes, I know that I promised to avoid politics, but the echoes of “Drill Baby Drill” from last night’s RNC are still reverberating in my head. We have 3% of the world’s oil reserves, and consume 25% of the world’s oil. So how is drilling the answer? It’s mildly depressing.

However, since we all need a respite for the moment, I’m going to hold off on any more comments. As you may well imagine, I’m overflowing with them. For now, though, I am going to hold my tongue. So have I been doing anything recently besides staring, bleary-eyed and pale-faced, at Wolf Blitzer and the CNN news team? Of course!

Recently I started to investigate different ways to green my wardrobe. Where might I find sustainable clothing? I know that the environmental impact of the clothing industry is significant; Americans on average throw away 68 pounds of clothes and textiles every year. This is a new phenomenon—ask your grandmother if she ever threw away clothes as a child. I doubt it. I am sure they mended their clothes when they became worn, and passed clothes from older to younger child. How did we get to this mindset of disposable clothing?

Waste isn’t the only issue: polyester is made from petroleum, dyes can be harmful for the environment, and many clothes are made in horrific conditions in sweatshops. Are there other options besides going to the typical stores in the mall?

I’ve been doing a lot of investigation into different clothing options. First, just recycling your clothes can make a huge difference. Donate your old clothes—it’s easy to find a clothes drop location or a church that will take the items. There is no reason for usable clothes to be filling our landfills.

Treehugger has a decent section on greening your wardrobe. Unfortunately, I haven’t found much in the way of organic clothing. More accurately, I haven’t found much in the way of organic clothing for men. It seems that there are a growing number of options for women’s clothing, but precious few for men. I will continue to investigate, though, because if there are good sustainable clothing lines out there for men, I want to make sure I use my purchasing dollar to support them. And I will make sure to write about it here.

I’ll leave you with a final note on politics: Register to Vote! You can find a wealth of information at HeadCount.

This isn't a partisan blog, but...

In all fairness, I did post Joe Biden's record on the environment the other day. So I think it is only fair that I post Sarah Palin's record as well.

Honestly, it isn't good. It's slightly frightening to hear a politician question if the causes of global warming are man-made.

Basically I have nothing else to say about this, and I'm going to get back to writing about what I am doing in my own life to be green. Enough politics for now.

Follow up to yesterday - Denmark and energy independence

Yesterday I talked about Jimmy Carter and bold plans for American energy independence—plans that fizzled out when he lost the 1980 election. Imagine where we might be, I asked, had Americans continued down the path to energy independence set by Carter.

Here is an interesting example of a nation that did just that: Denmark. Now I realize that there are very real, fundamental differences between the United States and Denmark, in the '70's and today. However, I think the broader lessons are valid.

Unlike America, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent. (And it didn’t happen by Danish politicians making their people stupid by telling them the solution was simply more offshore drilling.)

So writes Thomas Friedman in his article, Flush With Energy. The Danes made a stunning switch from complete reliance on foreign energy and fossil fuels to a nation that now exports electricity. Perhaps most sobering is the conclusion to the article. The world's largest wine company is Danish, and as the president of the company says, "We’ve had 35 new competitors coming out of China in the last 18 months," said Engel, "and not one out of the U.S." Scary stuff.

A Green President

“With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly…We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren. We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.”

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a president who had the courage to stand up and say something like this, even at the risk of being unpopular? Wouldn’t it be great if we had a president who would ask Americans to make sacrifices in our personal lives for the greater good?

Actually, we did have a president like this—Jimmy Carter. The above excerpt is taken from a speech he gave on April 17, 1977. In the grips of a energy crisis that was crippling the nation, Carter made energy policy a central focus of his administration. You can read through this speech, or the one he delivered on July 15, 1979. The 1979 speech, famously known as the Crisis of Confidence speech, was given in the wake of the explosion of the energy markets after the Iranian Revolution. This speech was widely seen as a failure at the time.

Looking back today at these speeches, and at his presidency as a whole, one wonders if we may have squandered four years of the first Green President. President Carter was asking us to reexamine our way of life and our habits for the greater good. Carter will always be remembered for famously donning a cardigan and asking Americans to turn down their thermometers, and for installing a solar panel on the roof of the White House. For a long time people laughed at this legacy—but what if we had listened a little more closely?

I am not going to argue that Jimmy Carter was the most effective president, or even a great one. However, his vision and his genuine concern for the direction of his country in relation to our energy policies have a lot of people today asking: Was Jimmy Carter Right? What if his suggestions and concerns continued to exist at the forefront of our nation’s policies, even after he left office?

Unfortunately, things didn’t turn out that way. Despite his best efforts to warn us about the long-term dangers of the energy crisis, Carter lost the election in 1980. There was a small matter of some hostages in Iran. That kinda derailed his whole campaign. Plus, Americans didn’t want to be told to wear cardigans and conserve. Reagan’s message was a lot simpler. And what was one of the first official acts of the Reagan administration? Why, removing the solar panels from the White House roof, of course. I am assuming that, had they been available at the time, Reagan would have also converted his entire fleet of presidential vehicles to Hummers as well.

In hindsight, with our own energy crisis and $4 a gallon gas, maybe it is time to think about what Carter had to say in the ‘70’s. Maybe it wasn’t the most popular thing to tell Americans at the time, but with another election just months away, looking back at these words may provide a valuable lesson to us all.

Looking at Joe Biden's record on the environment

It's hard to avoid politics in a presidential election year. While I try to avoid being preachy about environmental issues, it would be criminal to understate the importance that the next administration's policies will have for us all. The U.S. has the ability to take a leadership role on global environmental issues, but it's going to take a lot of courage and innovation.

I don't think it would take you particularly long to detect my personal political leanings by reading through my blog. In fact, reading the blog itself might not be necessary with a title like The Going Green Project.

Personal opinions aside, however, it is crucial that we know where our candidates stand on environmental issues. What is their energy plan? What is their record on environmental issues? If everyone has the right to vote, then we all have a duty to honor that right by being informed voters. Whether or not you know from whom your ballot will be cast in November, it's worth your time to learn more about how our next administration might act. I strongly believe that there are small actions everyone can take in their daily lives that affect the world we live in. This coming election, however, may represent an opportunity to take a very large action, but that can only happen if we are informed.

With the announcement of Senator Joe Biden as Barack Obama's running mate, along with the kick-off of the Democratic National Convention, I'd like to begin by posting a review of Biden's environmental record. Biden has a respectable (for a politician anyway) 83% lifetime score from the League of Conservation voters for his voting record in the Senate.

For more in-depth reading, I would also recommend this interview with Biden, conducted when he was still a candidate for the Democratic nomination. If you know anything about Biden, then you know he's built his reputation on foreign policy issues. He blends this focus on global politics with his concern for energy and environmental issues, and comes up with term "energy security." Biden believes that the most critical foreign policy decisions of the future will come from the problems and obstacles created by global warming. At the very least, the interview is telling insight into the views of a man who, in just over two months, could be a heartbeat from the Presidency.

Finally, while I will devote more time to the candidate's positions on environmental issues in the coming weeks, I have posted a link on the left that you can use to start your investigation.

Best Green Blogs

Thanks to the Best Green Blogs website for posting The Going Green Project on their directory.
You can see the listing here. The Best Green Blogs directory lists blogs about green and sustainable living. It's a great source of information of all types. You can subscribe to RSS feeds, or just browse the listings. I'm excited that the Going Green Project has now been added to the directory!

Protect the Environment with Box O’ Wine?

If you went to college, or even if you didn’t, you’ve probably had wine out of a box. Cheap wine, served in 5 liter boxes that can easily be stacked in a fridge? Yes, there is a reason why Franzia can call themselves the world’s most popular wine.

But did you know that wine in a box is good for the environment? It turns out that boxed wine is not only good economically and environmentally, but it’s also gaining popularity in, gasp, Italy and France! Take a look at an op-ed piece in today’s New York Times:

Italy’s Agriculture Ministry announced this month that some wines that receive the government’s quality assurance label may now be sold in boxes. That’s right, Italian wine is going green, and for some connoisseurs, the sky might as well be falling.

As the Times goes on to point out, wine in a box is less of a stigma in other parts of the world. Many wines actually keep better in a box. Unless you are drinking a wine that is in the upper echelon, you are probably better off with a box. You can open a box of wine, and it will stay good for up to a month. It is only in the US that we look down on the Franzias of the wine world (except of course when we are in college, and then we are looking up at the Franzia as a friend pours the contents of the box directly down our throats).

Environmentally speaking, less packaging means more efficient shipping, and that translates into lower CO2 emissions. Since most wines come from California, those of us on the East Coast would be greatly reducing the carbon footprint of the wine we drink if we purchased the boxed variety.

Has your mouth started to water for some refreshing white zinfandel in a box yet?

Unfortunately, the market for boxed wine is poor at best. There aren't many options, especially if you want to taste your wine. If you are just interested in imbibing, I suppose that doesn’t matter as much. Until the American wine industry shifts their focus, boxes o’ wine will stay relegated to the bottom shelf.

But at least now, when you're enjoying your Franzia, you can feel comfortable knowing you’ve been environmentally responsible. So enjoy!

A story of choice, light bulbs, and politicians

Are you afraid of the government taking away your personal freedoms? Many Americans are—and with good reason. The Patriot Act, FISA, and the general behavior of our current administration is enough to make even the most red-white-and-blue-blooded American nervous. But do not fear, for there is a Congresswoman from Minnesota who has taken up the battle for American freedom. U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann is angry and she’s not gonna take it anymore.

What freedom is she fighting for, you ask? Why, the freedom to choose your own light bulbs, of course. Yes, there is actually a Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act.

Rep. Bachmann and 24 other representatives are fighting the Energy Independence and Security Act—the EISA will begin phasing out traditional incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012 in favor of the more environmentally friendly compact fluorescent bulbs. The fact that valuable government time, money, and effort are being spent on this debate is troubling enough on its own. What’s even more disturbing are some of Rep. Bachmann’s quotes:

"Most Americans, if you ask them, have no idea that the government has already made a choice for them," Bachmann said in a televised MSNBC interview. "The government has substituted its choice for the American consumer's choice. Most Americans have no idea they won't be able to choose their own light bulbs."

Or, if you don’t care about wasting 41 seconds of your life that you’ll never get back, you could watch her question the science of global warming.

Yeah, this is a strange story on several levels. The argument against fluorescent light bulbs is a fairly simple one: they have mercury that could spill and become potentially hazardous if the bulbs break. Oh, and I guess there is the argument that people have the right to choose their own light bulbs, even if it hampers our ability to become energy independent.

The first part of the argument is easy to refute: even the electrical and manufacturing industries side with the environmentalists on this one. The energy savings are real, on an individual level and on a national level. And the health concerns are way over-blown. As Julia Bovey, a spokeswoman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, says, “There is 200 times more mercury in each filling in Congresswoman Bachmann's teeth than there is in a compact fluorescent light bulb.”

The second half of the argument is, of course, silly. Light bulb freedom of choice is as ridiculous a concept as Rep. Bachmann herself. This is a woman who claims that any human connection to global warming is, “voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.”

Unfortunately, Rep. Bachmann’s strange crusade lays bare a fundamental truth about America: we do not like to change unless we really have to, and even then we like to come to that conclusion on our own. When the government tells us what to do, we kick and scream like a four-year-old who’s just been told to get ready for bed. It is the danger of over-legislating. You’re liable to get labeled a communist, or worse, a Democrat, for trying to do something that is in everyone’s best interests.

Might there have been another way to attack the problem of incandescent light bulbs? In an ideal world, you would tax the incandescent bulbs, and provide tax breaks for manufacturers who created the desired fluorescent bulbs. Then there is an economic incentive to buy fluorescent—it doesn’t take long to see the “choices” that people make when it affects their wallet. You’ll notice that it is the “American consumer” that Rep. Bachmann is trying to protect in her comments. It really is always about economics.

It is too bad that we are so far behind in the fight against global warming that we cannot wait for the market to drive change. That is no longer a luxury we have.

At least we can all applaud Rep. Bachmann for her tenacity. Maybe someone should tell her that there are a lot of freedoms that are far more important that we should be fighting for! Or maybe we can use my new favorite solution: send her to Greenland to see the effects of global warming first person.

Vampire power

Standby power. Phantom Load. Leaking electricity. Vampire power. What on earth am I talking about right now? All these terms are different names for the electricity that is lost by leaving electrical appliances plugged into the wall, even if they are not in use or if they are "turned off."

Electrical appliances that have wallpacks, clocks, LEDs, or any kind of standby feature are sucking electricity. Some of the biggest offenders include phone chargers, TVs, wall clocks, VCRs and DVD players, and computers. All of these items are consuming energy when they are plugged in, whether you are using them or not.

So why should you care? Depending on what estimate you use, phantom load uses up about 6% of the electricity in the United States! Wow. That is a lot. If we reduced this wasted energy by just 1% of total use, we could save 55 million barrels of oil a year.

---

The more I learn about more efficient and eco-friendly ways to live, the more I realize that the difficulty is not about actually being green. How hard is it to unplug your phone charger or your iPod charger when your device is fully charged? It is the simplest thing to do. Would you leave the water running in the sink when you finished brushing your teeth? Is there a difference? No, it is simply a matter of habit.

The hardest things about being green is learning about what to do, and then changing your habits. I had no idea that electrical devices sucked electricity when turned off. Now that I know, I have gone around and yanked all these devices out of the wall. It honestly took me five minutes. Not even five minutes. The phone charger (both of them), the iPod charger, the DVD player that I never use, the power cord for my laptop. All of these items have been costing me money, and all because I didn't know they were taking up electricity. Now I am in the habit of unplugging my devices. It wasn't hard.

Being green isn't all about green consumerism or green trends that will impress your yoga friends—it is sometimes about being conservative. It can be about acting in your own best interests. Save yourself money by unplugging devices around the house that aren't in use. Green conservatism—good for you and good for the world!

Interested in learning more about the creeping menace of vampire power? Check out treehugger.com's tips here: Cut back on Phantom Power.

Finding Wine

I've talked previously about organic wine, and I promised to report back with any findings. And I am happy to say I have good news! Last night, we journeyed to the Brix Wine Shop in the South End here in Boston. We discovered this wonderfully aesthetic wine shop during an online search for organic wine sellers in the area.

As luck would have it, Brix had a wine tasting yesterday that featured domestic wines, including a couple of organics! Alright, now we're talkin'.

After the tasting, we took home a few of our favorites. Most impressive on the organic front was the wine from Cooper Mountain Vineyards. The vineyard grows organic grapes, processes the wine in a certified organic winery, and, not surprisingly, this produces certified organic wine. In fact, the wine steward also assured us that the label on the bottle is made from 100% recycled paper. Cooper Mountain Vineyards even takes the next step beyond simple organic certification. They practice what they call biodynamic farming, and they claim this type of farming is healthier for the soil and the environment and of course the end product!

Clearly this is a bottle of organic wine, but I'm not sure that you'd be able to identify the wine as organic from the taste. The Pinor Noir we bought is just outstanding. Secondly, the bottle doesn't exactly promote "organic." Are typical wine snobs turned off by the idea of organic wine? Perhaps. This would explain the lack of overt advertising on the bottle itself. I actually had to ask the steward, "how do I know this bottle is organic wine?" It turns out there is some small print on the back that says the word "organic," but clearly they are not trumpeting the fact.

This brings me to the second lesson of the evening: it is not always easy to spot the organic wines. You have to ask, and you have to read the labels. In the world of wines, consumers are looking for a lot of things, and organic doesn't seem to be at the top of the list. At the same time, it seems like such a natural progression for wine connoisseurs--organic wine is by definition going to be wine that is cared for from the grape to the cork. There is no reason to assume that "organic" is a pejorative when it comes to wine.

I hope that eventually there will be an intersection of the two ideas: organic wine and great wine. It seems like a natural convergence. Right now, however, you have to look to find your organic wine. They don't make it easy.

Nonetheless, I will continue to search out and buy organic wine whenever possible. Hopefully my consumer dollar goes to the right vineyards, and organics become more prevalent and more popular. And of course, if I find any more winners like Cooper Mountain, you'll hear about them here.

The Greenland Solution

Last Wednesday, in the midst of a rather lengthy ramble on the topic of food, I wrote about climate change. I laughed at the idea that there is someone who thinks it’s ok to cut down our rainforests. I know there are still global warming skeptics in the world, but that viewpoint is so far from my own that I have trouble wrapping my mind around it. People still don’t believe in global warming? Really?

Then I read an editorial in today’s Boston Globe with the title: Convincing the Climate Change Skeptics. Huh? Skeptics? The editorial was written by John Holden, who is described as, “a professor in the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard and the director of the Woods Hole Research Center.” Mr. Holden doesn’t really try to convince the skeptics that they’re wrong as much as he ridicules their arguments with all the subtlety of a jackhammer. I can’t say I blame him either. As he says at the conclusion of his article, “the extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous.”

I mentioned in my food post that is that it can be difficult to accept that the cause and effect of global warming is not something you can see happening in right in front of you. At this point, global warming can be clearly observed through scientific measurement, but Joe Citizen doesn’t see or feel its effects. Not yet, anyway.

Well, unless maybe you are talking about the Joe Citizen who lives in Greenland. There is a great article on Time.com about Climate Change in Action in Greenland. What’s interesting is how we can predict how global warming will affect us in the future, based on scientific models, but it’s a lot harder to see the tangible effects today. As this article points out, “we can't look at a hurricane today, or an iceberg melting, and say: ‘Yes, this is global warming, and we did this.’ Climate change is change, and change happens over time.”

Except apparently if you live in Greenland, you can see global warming all around you. Melting glaciers can be seen with the naked eye: “There's no doubt here, no room for skeptics — temperatures have warmed in Greenland, and as they have warmed, the ice has melted. It is as simple as that.” We don't have any glaciers here in the continental U.S., and sometimes people really just need to see with things with their own eyes.

Is there any doubt about what we should do with climate change skeptics after reading that article? I think it's obvious. We should send them to Greenland. Yup, pack ‘em all off for the Sermeq Kujalleq glacier in Greenland, and see which melts faster: the glacier or the skepticism.

Battleground Earth—I couldn’t make this up

I mentioned a couple of days ago in my post about organic wine that I’ve discovered a channel called Planet Green. The channel is part of the Discovery Channel family of networks, and is dedicated to sustainable living programming. I was watching again the other day when a advertisement for a new show came on, featuring Tommy Lee and Ludacris.

Seriously, I couldn’t make this up. Tommy Lee (that Tommy Lee) and Ludacris (yes, the rapper) are competing in a show called Battleground Earth. How awesome is that? Check out the description of the show:

BATTLEGROUND EARTH: LUDACRIS vs. TOMMY LEE challenges hip hop superstar Chris Ludacris Bridges and rock god Tommy Lee to battle against the toxic forces destroying Mother Earth as they travel across the country on a 10-episode tour.

Amazing! Who knew that these two guys would sign up to spread awareness with their ecorages in an effort to ‘save Mutha Earth’?

You can say what you want about Tommy Lee and Ludacris and their music. I think this is fantastic. Yes, it is cheesy and ridiculous—but everything with Tommy Lee and Ludacris is ridiculous. A combined effort? That’s off the charts! But at the same time, if someone is a fan of one of those artists watches the show and rethinks how they are living, that more than outweighs the cheese. While I don’t know any of them personally, it appears that Tommy Lee and Ludacris have lots of fans. Maybe some of them tune in and get inspired because of the star power. We can always hope!

Nicely done guys!

What’s for Dinner—Part I

It’s time for a touchy subject. Yes, it is time to talk about food. The relationship between our sources of our food and the meals that end up on our tables has never been as unclear as it is today. It has become all too easy to go to the supermarket and buy pre-packaged groceries—you never know where your food comes from, how it is produced, or the steps that went into how your food ends up in your shopping cart. And you never get to consider the effect that this has on the environment.

I’d like to talk a lot about diet and the effects of your choice of food. First, however, a quick disclaimer: moral superiority has nothing to do with this discussion. My diet was the same for 30 years, and not until the very end did I even consider the possibility of changing. I didn’t want to change my diet—I liked it just the way it was, thank you very much. Eventually, however, I started to see how empowering it was to really examine and take control of my food choices. For me, it was not a way to feel better than others. By forcing myself to make some drastic changes, I was able to think a lot about the deep connection people feel with their food.

If you want to get a reaction from someone, tell them that you don’t like what they’re eating for lunch. “How can you eat that? That looks terrible!” Nothing brings out an independent streak faster than criticism of someone’s meal. I don’t want to tell anyone else what to eat—the choice can only be made by individuals. However, I do think it’s important to know the ramifications of your choices. I hope that the reasoning behind my choices is solid enough to convince others, but my goal here is even less ambitious. I hope that people try to be more aware of their food, where it comes from, and what that means for all of us.

I have recently stopped eating meat. (I personally choose not to use the word vegetarian, opting for the somewhat passive construction of I don’t eat meat. The exact definition of vegetarianism changes depending on who you talk to, and what their particular biases are.) Not eating meat was not an easy transition for me. Not at all! I have eaten meat at most every meal since I began with solid foods. Meat is convenient, easy, and extremely satisfying. Why would I want to stop?!?

There are a lot of reasons to reduce or eliminate consumption of meat. Today I am going to concentrate on global warming. In future posts, I’ll get into some of the other reasons, and how they affect the environment directly and indirectly. But for right now, I will stick with the issue of global warming.

For me, there are few issues that could ever be considered more important than climate change. It is a massive problem without easy solution. Global warming feels like an abstract concept, because the average person can’t observe the connection between the cause and the effect. When you eat a cheeseburger, you don’t notice the temperature rise in your backyard. It doesn’t feel like a direct connection, and so it’s easy to ignore, especially when the cheeseburgers are sizzling on the grill.

Unfortunately, eating meat is a major contributor to global warming. The evidence is clear. I am going to list a number of reports that you can easily reference at the bottom that prove clearly the impact of eating meat. Methane is produced by livestock, both through their digestive process and through the storage of animal waste. Methane is far more powerful a greenhouse gas than the much talked about CO2. By some estimates, methane is responsible for as much global warming as all other greenhouse gases combined

Also, the amount of meat consumed by the human population continues to rise. As more people eat meat, we need to find more room to raise the animals. Hmm, where should we put all these beef cattle? I have an idea—how about that rainforest over there? We can cut it down and stick a beef cattle farm there. Hopefully I don’t have to tell you why it’s a bad idea to cut down all the rainforests.

One of the more interesting points I found in regards to the production of methane was in the Earth Save Report. Methane will cycle out of the atmosphere in around eight years (compared to CO2 which lasts for over a century). A reduction in methane would help reduce greenhouse gases almost immediately! By switching to some variation of a vegetarian diet, or simply by reducing the amount of meat that you consume, you can drastically and immediately help to reverse the effects of global warming. For me, this is a strong motivating factor.

Ok, well that is it for today on this topic. I don’t know that I have changed anyone’s mind just yet, but maybe I have given you one thing to think about. Eventually, I will discuss what it’s like to cut meat out, how I got through those harrowing first few days, and what to say to people who wonder where you might be getting your protein. I even have some good advice for when people try get you to admit that you are only vegetarian because your girlfriend/wife/significant other must be making you.

Some background material:
Earth Save Report
Diet, Energy and Global Warming
Can you reduce your carbon footprint with a vegan diet?
Livestock a Major Threat to Environment