The Red, White, and Green

The Mertz Glacier, from which a giant iceberg broke free after collision with the B9B iceberg on Feb. 12 or 13. Photo via Wikimedia Commons: Jacques Verron

Hold your hats, climate change activists: A colossal iceberg about the size of Luxembourg (read: Rhode Island) broke off an Antarctic glacier earlier this month after being clobbered by another giant iceberg. It’s a monumental event — the new iceberg is one of the largest recorded in several years — but as of now, the calving isn’t being blamed on global warming.

From Reuters:

“The calving itself hasn’t been directly linked to climate change but it is related to the natural processes occurring on the ice sheet,” said Rob Massom, a senior scientist at the Australian Antarctic Division and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center in Hobart, Tasmania.

But despite the collision’s apparently natural cause, the two icebergs now floating side-by-side could have serious impact on the world’s oceans, since the area they’re located is of crucial importance to global ocean circulation.

From AP:

This area of water had been kept clear because of the glacier, said Steve Rintoul, a leading climate expert. With part of the glacier gone, the area could fill with sea ice, which would disrupt the sinking ability of the dense and cold water.

This sinking water is what spills into ocean basins and feeds the global ocean currents with oxygen, Rintoul explained.

As there are only a few areas in the world where this occurs, a slowing of the process would mean less oxygen supplied into the deep currents that feed the oceans.

“There may be regions of the world’s oceans that lose oxygen, and then of course most of the life there will die,” said Mario Hoppema, chemical oceanographer at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany.

Undoubtedly, climate researchers will be studying these icebergs closely to help us understand what may happen if and when more icebergs break off as global temperatures rise over the next several decades.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Fascinated by icebergs? Still deciding what you want to do with your life? Here’s how you can become a climate scientist (hint: hope you like physics!).

Related posts:
Want to understand Cap and Trade? Watch this
Stopping deforestation five times more effective than carbon capture technology

It seems like compostable packaging is all the rage right now, even though I would wager that the majority of Americans don’t even know what composting is. (To wit: Los Angeles’ largely ignored green bins.) Now, Frito-Lay is the latest company to jump on the biodegradable bandwagon, with the unveiling of SunChips‘ completely compostable snack food bag. It’ll be on Canadian grocery store shelves next month, and here in the US just in time for Earth Day 2010.

WATCH:

[Watch video on YouTube]

Of course, as with the biodegradable hotel key cards I profiled in January, you can’t just polish off a bag of Harvest Cheddar chips, toss it in the trash, and think you’ve done your part for the planet — these bags have to be placed in a hot compost pile or bin to break down in the estimated 12-16 weeks.

And also like the hotel key cards, these SunChips bags are made from Ingeo, a plant-based plastic manufactured by NatureWorks. While there’s been some controversy as to whether or not plant-based plastics do more harm than good (once you factor in the possibly genetically modified corn used to make these biopolymers — not to mention the pesticides and fertilizers used to grow the corn), NatureWorks has said it remains committed to sustainability, which you can read more about here.

We could debate for days as to whether these biodegradable bags will have a measurable impact on carbon emissions, but I think the greatest boon to the environment won’t be the bag itself; it’ll be the awareness this campaign brings to the general public about composting and why it’s so important. And that, in my opinion, is pretty cool.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Learn how to compost.

Related posts:
The Dasani PlantBottle: Can you feel less guilty about drinking bottled water?
Green Genius: Biodegradable trash bags that REALLY biodegrade

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Old-growth redwoods in Redwood National Park. That insect-sized creature at the bottom of the frame is me; the height of the photo was cropped by over two-thirds and I couldn't even get the tops of the trees in the original shot.

With all the focus on buffoons like Donald Trump (lauded climatologist that he is) pointing to this winter’s nonstop snow storms as evidence that global warming isn’t real, I’d like to reiterate that what we’re really talking about here is climate change. In this sound bite–driven world, semantics matter; the term global warming, while it describes what is likely happening to our planet, doesn’t paint a clear enough picture of the more visible changes in weather patterns that may be occurring as a result.

Case in point: California’s ancient coastal redwoods may be threatened due to declining summer fog levels, according to a new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In the study, fog levels were found to have diminished by nearly three hours a day over the last century, increasing the likelihood of drought stress and eventual loss of trees.

From Reuters:

“Fog prevents water loss from redwoods in summer, and is really important for both the tree and the forest,” biologist Todd Dawson of the University of California Berkeley said in a statement.

…Dawson and colleagues estimated the frequency of fog by looking at weather records, especially airport records dating back to 1951.

“Since 1901, the average number of hours of fog along the coast in summer has dropped from 56 percent to 42 percent, which is a loss of about three hours per day,” said Berkeley’s James Johnstone, who led the study.

The researchers aren’t certain if the cause is natural climate variations or human activity (they’ll be looking at that in a future study), but I think we can all agree that the loss of these trees would be absolutely devastating, not just to the organisms that are part of this unique ecosystem, but to humanity as a whole.

I had a chance to visit Redwood National Park in October, and at the risk of sounding hokey, it was one of the great experiences of my life. To walk for hours among the very trees that had been there since before Christ was born — had stood in this same place at the time the Incas built Machu Picchu, and when Mozart wrote his first symphony, and while John Adams signed the Declaration of Independence…well, there are no words to describe it. I get choked up even trying to write about it.

The bright side is that these trees are incredible survivors: Coastal redwoods (or their very close relatives) existed as far back as the time of the dinosaurs, and goodness knows the climate has undergone myriad changes since then. But with just 5 percent of the world’s ancient redwoods left standing, it remains to be seen whether there will be enough to withstand the climate change we may be facing in the years ahead. We can only hope.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Send a donation to the Save the Redwoods League, which has been working since 1918 to protect and restore our redwood forests.

Related posts:
The ultimate green Christmas: Rent your tree
Put a (real) cork in it

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

[Watch video on YouTube]

Not too long ago, a family member was excitedly telling me about her latest green purchase: an adorable little dog bone–shaped leash clip that dispenses biodegradable doggie doo bags. She had come across it at the checkout counter of The Container Store, and couldn’t resist — after all, who doesn’t want to feel guilt-free about tossing doody-filled plastic bags in the dumpster three times a day?

I hated to burst her bubble, but here’s the secret about those bags, and a lot of those other “biodegradable” bags: They don’t actually biodegrade. Well, at least not in normal landfill conditions. You see, those bags are designed to break down in composting environments only — that is, when exposed to air, sunlight, and natural microorganisms in the soil. That’s great if you want to use one of those bags to line your compost bin (but don’t throw dog waste in there; that requires a special kind of composting), but useless if you want to use it for your trash. In the anaerobic environment of the typical sealed landfill, those “biodegradable” bags essentially become mummified — as does any other kind of organic matter, for that matter.

That’s why I’m intrigued by a new brand of plastic bags by a company called Green Genius: They’re designed to actually break down in a sealed landfill. Watch the video, above, to see how it all works.

For lack of a better word, this sounds like a truly genius invention. My only question is this: If the methane that would have been released over 1,000 years as a traditional plastic bag breaks down in a landfill is released in a much shorter period with these new biodegradable bags, what happens if there’s no methane capture project attached to that landfill? Methane is 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 — will we suddenly have a lot more methane being released into the atmosphere?

Of course, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t embrace a product that could potentially put an end to the plastic pollution smothering our planet; I, for one, am really excited to go pick up my first box of Green Genius bags. And maybe this will be the impetus to hustle up and promote methane capture on a wider scale.

The bags, which are also made from 40 percent recycled plastic, are currently available in tall kitchen and large outdoor sizes. Click here to find out where to buy them.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Want to test out a Green Genius bag before you buy? Click here to order a free sample and receive a coupon for $2 off your next purchase.

Related posts:
Neato! Biodegradable hotel key cards
Why aren’t Angelenos using those green bins?

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Stevendepolo

Today on HuffPost, I highlight just how ubiquitous the toxic packaging additive bisphenol A (BPA) has become. The good news is that there’s been a lot of press about banning the suspected endocrine disruptor from baby products like bottles and sippy cups, and a number of cities and states have managed to do just that — even the FDA has reversed its stance on the chemical, saying it is now “taking reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply.”

But what about the thousands of other products with BPA (canned goods, credit card receipts, plastic food containers, even dental appliances like night guards) that we adults come in contact with every day? This is scary stuff, and the chance for cumulative exposure is high. Moreover, the diseases linked to BPA exposure are equally as scary: heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, to name a few.

Now, a study published yesterday by Canadian researchers reveals that those most at risk may not even be able to limit their own exposure: I’m talking about babies who have yet to be born. It turns out that human placental cells die or are severely damaged after being exposed to even very low doses of BPA.

From Enviromental Health News:

The researchers obtained placentas from five women who had normal pregnancies and deliveries. Human cytotrophoblast cells were collected from the placentas and cultured. This type of placental cell is important for the exchange of oxygen, nutrients and waste products between mother and fetus.

The cells were exposed to BPA for 24 hours at one of seven different concentrations, ranging from 0.002 to 200 micrograms per milliliter (µg/ml). These doses were selected because they approximate levels of BPA measured in fetal and maternal blood. The researchers then looked to see if BPA exposure damaged the cells.

…Damage to the cell membrane was 1.3 to 1.7 times higher in placental cells exposed to BPA for 24 hours compared to cells that were not exposed to BPA. Apoptosis [cell death] was 2 to 3 times higher in the BPA treated cells. These results indicate that cellular development was adversely affected by BPA.

In layman’s terms, this means that for a pregnant woman, exposure to BPA — even at low levels — could potentially damage placental cells and impact fetal development.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: If you’re pregnant, it’s prudent to take extra steps to minimize BPA exposure. Avoid canned foods, soups, and beverages (except those from Eden Organic); don’t use a plastic food storage container without first contacting the company to see if it contains BPA; and use a stainless steel reusable bottle to stay hydrated when you’re on the go.

Related posts:
Dr. McDougall’s BPA-free, vegan soups
Consumer Reports finds BPA in 19 name-brand canned foods

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo: Orion Energy Systems

There’s been a lot of debate as to what the real technological breakthrough is when it comes to eco-friendly lighting. Compact fluorescent bulbs are massive energy savers, but are pretty darn ugly, no matter what color temperature I’ve managed to test out. They also have the nasty problem of containing mercury, which can pose a serious health hazard if the bulb accidentally breaks or isn’t disposed of properly once it’s toast. With LED lighting, there remains the issue of prohibitive price; it’s also been speculated that widespread use of LEDs could worsen light pollution, harming wildlife.

Without risk of sounding like an infomercial, what if there was a solution that actually looked great, didn’t use a drop of electricity, and was free of harmful contaminants like mercury and lead? There is: It’s called a solar light pipe.

It’s basically the same concept as a skylight: A hole is placed in the roof of a building to allow natural sunlight to light a room, but the solar light pipe, or light tube as it’s also called, uses light refraction technology to focus that light to a specific area. When installed in large numbers, the effect is a lot like recessed can lighting (see photo, above).

Why I, wonder, aren’t more greenies talking about this incredibly efficient type of solar lighting? Maybe I haven’t heard a lot about it because many of the big-time green lighting developers, like Orion Energy Systems — who yesterday received a utility patent for its Apollo light pipe system — are focusing on commercial use. (Disclosure: I have a family member employed by Orion; he in no way promised to give me his Prius in exchange for writing this post.)

It seems kind of redundant to put solar panels on a building to help pay the electricity bill for your fluorescent bulbs, when in a lot of sunnier climates you could just skip that step and harness the sun directly.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Are you one of the few not-broke Americans who’s in the process of renovating her home or building a new one? Check out these solar tubes for residential use.

Related posts:
LEDs could worsen light pollution
Team Germany wins Solar Decathlon

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

I was cleaning out my wallet yesterday after my trip to Boston over the holidays (personal disclosure: my brother got married on New Year’s Eve and I was, ahem, the best man), when I noticed the plastic key card from The Lenox Hotel still tucked away in my billfold. Oh, darn it! I know it’s just a tiny piece of plastic, but it still annoyed me that I hadn’t returned it to the hotel before I left so it could be reused — now I had no choice but to throw it away.

That’s when I turned the card over and noticed in small print on the bottom of the card:

In an effort to protect our world’s resources, this key is 100% biodegradable.

Wow, how cool! I’d never seen one of these cards before. Not a surprise though, that it would be from The Lenox, which was recently chosen one of the five greenest luxury hotels in America by U.S. News & World Report. (The hotel was indeed green, from the wicker basket in our room compartmentalized for three different types of recycling, to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Consumers Guide to Effective Environmental Choices next to the Bible in my nightstand drawer. I was not such a fan, however, of the endless supply of bottled water in the hotel gym — sustainably sourced though it may have been.)

There’s an Ingeo stamp on the key card, which is a bioplastic made from field corn–derived dextrose. It’s important to note that while these types of biopolymers lessen our reliance on fossil fuels because the “plastic” is being manufactured from a vegetable source, rather than petroleum, the cards are not truly biodegradable unless they’re composted. In a closed landfill, devoid of oxygen, they will decompose at the same rate as traditional plastic.

Still, it’s a step in the right direction. And while a biodegradable key card may seem like a tiny little thing, there are a lot of plastic cards out there beyond the standard hotel key card — stores’ gift cards, membership cards, credit cards. Imagine if they were all made from sustainable materials, and properly composted.

Reminder to myself: Call the Los Angeles Department of Public Works to find out if it accepts bioplastic in its green composting bins.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Those biodegradable clamshell containers from Trader Joe’s are worthless unless you have access to composting. Call your local department of sanitation to find out if there’s compost collection in your area, or click here to learn how to compost yourself (even if you live in an apartment).

Related posts:
Why aren’t Angelenos using those green bins?
CB2 biodegradable bath accessories

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Colbs

Note: This post was originally published on 6.1.09.

Like most Americans dealing with the recession, my husband and I have been looking for ways to cut costs in our household budget. We tried giving up cable, but weren’t actually saving much, thanks to Time Warner Cable’s sneaky pricing packages that drove up the cost of our internet connection once we downgraded to network TV and the fact that we ended up going out to the movies more often than usual since we no longer had a DVR on which to record our favorite programs. After three months without cable and the last three consecutive Saturday nights spent playing Trivial Pursuit (not a bad way to pass an evening, but how many Jack Nicklaus Sports & Leisure questions can one really answer?), my husband decided enough was enough and negotiated with Time Warner’s cancellation department to win back our cable and DVR for a full $30 less a month than we were originally paying. We’ll make up the dollars somewhere else — as an environmental blogger, I need to stay up-to-date with Renovation Nation, right?

But now that we have the DVR back after all those months of quiet, I notice something I never did before: That darn thing is always on, humming in the background. And while we have all our other electronics on power strips that can be shut off to stop the flow of phantom power when they’re not being used, I’m not sure that the DVR can be shut off as well. I’ve heard rumors that because of software bugs, the DVR needs to be on 24/7. But according to Energy Efficient Choices, DVRs use anywhere from 12 to 20 watts in standby mode alone; that’s a lot of wasted energy. Is it really bad to power down the DVR at night (when our programs aren’t being recorded anyway)?

To answer that question, I call Time Warner. The representative in the technical department tells me that it’s absolutely fine to shut off the DVR at night — since it’s a hard drive, our programs will still be saved. The only downside, she says, is that it’ll take 10-15 minutes to reboot in the morning when we turn it back on.

My only question now — which the representative didn’t have an answer to — is whether that morning boot-up uses more power than leaving the DVR on all night. RWG readers, any thoughts?

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Since this post was originally published in June, I have been turning off the power strip connected to my DVR every night and have never encountered a problem (other than sometimes forgetting to turn it back on Sunday mornings and missing Meet the Press.) So go ahead: Unplug it!

Related posts:
Team Germany wins Solar Decathlon
The ‘clean’ coal oxymoron

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: ((Brian))

By the time you read this, I’ll be on my way up the West Coast of the United States for an 11-day trip to celebrate my birthday. And while I won’t be leaving the country save for a brief jaunt in Vancouver, I’m going to do what is pretty much now unfeasible for most email/Facebook/Twitter-reliant Americans: take a self-imposed technology break.

I know there will be opportunities galore for an environmental blogger such as myself to communicate about — hiking excursions in national parks, ecologically rich coastal wetlands, the Granville Island Public Market — but I can’t help but feel that ever since I got my BlackBerry, I can’t fully appreciate these types of experiences with constant updates from the outside world. It’s a cliche, but life just moves so darn fast now. And here’s another cliche, but I think more of us would be even more committed to the environmental issues we’re all working so hard to solve if we just took the time to stop — really stop — and smell the roses. It’s not enough to blog about saving our forests; sometimes you have to actually go see those forests.

It might be my birthday that’s making me nostalgic for the simpler world I remember from my childhood — the one where you got to truly relax with friends and family on the weekends without feeling the need to check Huffington Post for updates or respond to text messages every five minutes. All I know is, when I spent several days in Northern Wisconsin earlier this summer, where there wasn’t cell phone or internet service and I had to hike to the lodge every few days to check my email, it was probably the most blissful five days I’ve had in the past seven years (minus my honeymoon in Italy!).

So I hope you’ll understand if I miss any breaking environmental news for the next week or so. Articles will still be published, thanks to the technological marvel of advance scheduling. I promise to share the highlights of my trip when I return.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Studies say that taking the time to relax and enjoy nature is essential to good health. And you don’t have to go on an 11-day trip to take your own technology break, either: This weekend, turn off your computer/BlackBerry/iPhone and vow not to check your email or the internet till Monday morning.

Related post:
Taking time to hug some trees

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Gidsicki

I thought this would be an apt follow-up for yesterday’s post about carbon capture and storage. Why should we waste billions of dollars on developing and deploying a technology that is, at best, a stop-gap measure with the potential for unknown and catastrophic consequences when we can utilize the natural resources we already have? To wit: A report issued today by WWF-Sweden that says preserving natural forests is five times more cost-effective than CCS:

Stockholm, Sweden – WWF Sweden is urging its government — holding the current EU Presidency — to get behind an effective international agreement on halting forest loss as a key and highly cost effective measure on climate change.

“Sweden should follow the examples set by its northern neighbors in developing systems to halt deforestation,” said WWF CEO General Lasse Gustavsson. “One Swedish krona to stem deforestation results in the same emissions reductions as five kronor for the controversial carbon capture and storage technique.”

Gold in Green Forests, a report issued today by WWF-Sweden, says that next to energy efficiency halting forest loss and degradation is the most cost-effective method for mitigating climate change.

Alright, so the report is in Swedish, but you can read the summary here.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Deforestation is responsible for 2o percent of annual CO2 emissions. One of the most important things you can do is to only buy paper products made from recycled materials (or use a cloth alternative, when possible). The National Resources Defense Council estimates that if every US household swapped out just one four-pack of traditional bath tissue (made from virgin fiber) for the recycled version, it would save nearly 1 million trees a year.

Related posts:
Green wedding: Give up the gift wrap
Sustainable reading

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed