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.