Time to Eat the Dog? Weird Green Living Advice

Imagine carefully feeding your beloved and faithful dog a healthy diet that will help him grow fat and juicy, eyeing him one day and declaring, “Yep, it’s time to eat the dog.” That’s what two professors at Victoria University in New Zealand are proposing we consider – sort of – after finding that our choice in pets causes our carbon footprints to balloon out of control.

From the Dominion Post:

The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created bypopular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.

“If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda Vale said.

“A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don’t worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact … is comparable.”

In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.

They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle’s eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog’s.

Despite the title of their new book – Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living – Brenda and Robert Vale don’t really want you to serve Fido burgers at your next cookout. They are urging people to consider taking herbivorous food animals like goats as pets instead of dogs and cats.

The carbon footprint of our pets is probably something that most people haven’t really thought about, but while dogs and cats may not provide food or eat the most earth-friendly diets, they provide comfort and companionship that most people aren’t willing to give up. And, it’s highly unlikely that cities are going to begin allowing people to keep cows in suburban backyards or geese in their apartments.

Though some people can get away with having goats, chickens and rabbits as pets, not all of us can or want to – and an important way to offset the impact of dog and cat ownership is to adopt unwanted animals at shelters instead of buying from breeders. (And be sure to spay and neuter!)

Link [The Dominion Post]
Photo credit: HahaStop.com

Cave-Dwelling Blogger Hasn’t Spent Money in 9 Years

Could you go nine years without spending a penny? It sounds pretty much impossible – how would you feed yourself, keep yourself safe from the elements? What about clothing and medicine?

Daniel Suelo consciously removed himself from the consumer lifestyle nearly a decade ago and hasn’t looked back. He lives in a cave in Utah and fishes, forages, dumpster dives and sometimes hunts for his food – and writes all about it on his website and blog from a nearby public library.

From MatadorChange, via Treehugger:

While in Ecuador on a Peace Corps mission, he witnessed a rural community acquire increased monetary wealth through farming and shift their traditional lifestyle towards a diet of unhealthy, processed food and a newfound addiction to television.

The experience led Suelo on a spiritual quest that realized itself in India, where he was particularly moved by the Sadhus, wandering monks who renounce all money and possessions. He made the conscious decision to return home, quit his job, and carve out a life without money.

As he put it, “I simply got tired of being unreal. Money is one of those intriguing things that seem real and functional because two or more people believe it is real and functional.”

Essentially an extreme freegan, Suelo receives no government assistance and does not panhandle. He lives off the excess of American society, though the kindness of strangers helps a lot when he needs a ride, and he does use taxpayer-supported public libraries.

As Treehugger points out, Suelo probably has the lowest carbon footprint of any blogger in the world. Read more about his lifestyle and how he makes it work at MatadorChange and Suelo’s own website, Living Without Money.

Link [MatadorChange] via [Treehugger]
Photo: BBC World Service

Activist Nuns Convince Chevron to Track its Carbon Footprint

As it turned out, after years of resistance, all it took to get Chevron to track its carbon footprint was a threat from activist nuns. A group of faith-based investors, including the Sisters of St. Domenic, filed a resolution to force Chevron into being more environmentally responsible.

After the oil giant agreed to comply, the resolution was withdrawn. Chevron will now become the largest oil company to track its carbon footprint, something another competitor – ExxonMobil – has yet to do.

From GreenBiz.com, via Digg:

“As shareholders, we appreciate the difficulties that Chevron management faces in the long-term in confronting the task to reduce GHG emissions,” Sister Patricia Daly, executive director of the Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment and a member of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), said in a statement. “The recent advancements Chevron has made in reducing its carbon footprint and preparing the company for viability in a low-carbon business environment cannot be ignored.”

Daly made the announcement the day before San Ramon-based Chevron’s annual stockholders meeting, where reports suggest it may address concerns about a legal case in Ecuador that could lead to a multi-billion dollar judgment against the company. The case stems from alleged environmental violations committed by Texaco, which Chevron later acquired.

In the corporate world, money talks, and if your investors want you to do something you do it. It’s no surprise that money was the only reason Chevron agreed to pay any attention to their carbon footprint at all.

Link [GreenBiz.com] via [Digg]

Phish Summer Tour Going Green(ish) with Help from Reverb

It’s virtually impossible for big-name musical acts to go on tour without racking up a giant carbon footprint. But, with the help of Portland, Maine-based nonprofit Reverb, bands like Phish are able to green as many aspects of their tour as possible including fan transportation, recycling, and powering their buses with biodiesel.

Reverb, which has worked on over 70 tours and 1,000 events since their launch in 2004, previously helped Phish reduce the environmental impact of their Hamptom Coliseum shows earlier this year and now they’re teaming up again for the band’s summer tour.

From Ecolocalizer:

Like they did for the Hampton shows, Phish and Reverb are teaming up with Pickup Pal to help fans find carpools to and from shows. Since many fans hit up multiple shows, driving hundreds of miles from town to town, this has a huge potential impact! Not only are they providing the resource, Phish has added an extra incentive! Check out this blurb from their recent newsletter:

After each show on this summers’ tour, we will pick twenty random Phish Ride Share participants to receive a free download of that night’s show. Please visit http://www.pickuppal.com/pup/erp/ for more information and to find the shows that you may be driving to or need a ride to.

The band set up a resource site through Reverb, Traveling Light, where fans can look up eco-friendly places to stay, eat, play, and even volunteer while on tour. They’re also encouraging fans to offset their trip’s impact through Native Energy.

Phish is also working with Reverb to reduce backstage waste and energy usage, and they’re using carbon offsets to neutralize CO2 emissions from the touring fleet, air travel, hotel accommodations and energy usage at the venues. The band and crew are all using reusable water bottles, all catering products will be biodegradable and compostable and food scraps will get composted as well.

That’s pretty impressive. It’s so nice to see bands – especially bands that go on gigantic tours – take responsibility and get proactive in reducing their environmental impact.

Find out whether your favorite band is working with Reverb to green up their act at ReverbRock.org.

Link [Ecolocalizer] + [Reverb]
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Tesco Greenwash: Turn Lights into Flights!

A British supermarket seems to have failed to grasp the concept of going green. You see, Tesco has unveiled a new program that rewards shoppers for purchasing compact fluorescent light bulbs – wiTesco Greenwash: Turn Lights into Flights!th airline miles.  The ‘Every little helps’ promotion is meant to urge shoppers to cut back on energy at home, and then hop on an airplane and rack up a huge carbon footprint to make up for it.

From The Guardian, via Eden Bee

Tesco chief executive Terry Leahy is now offering air miles when you buy a low energy lightbulb. What next? Free packet of 20 Benson & Hedges with every Nicorette patch? A dozen king-size Mars bars with each box of Ryvita? Talk about counter-productive. It’s like being lost in the desert, miles from anywhere and eating your own legs to sustain yourself during your search for help.

Granted, the promotion actually allows shoppers to earn airline miles for all purchases – it’s just that some schmuck in the advertising department needed to find a word that rhymes with ‘flights’. LIGHTS! Genius!

But, as The Guardian’s Ed Gillespie points out, the real problem is that ads like this help feed into the notion that you can make a few small changes and still go about your very non-green daily routine – and call yourself ‘green’. It’s like taking a reusable bag to Wal-Mart and filling it with plastic crap from China. Not exactly helping things, is it?

Link [The Guardian] via [Eden Bee]

It’s Official: Urbanites Produce Less CO2 than Rural Residents

You’ve got a small home in the country surrounded by organic farmland or gardens, producing much of your own food and even supplementing your electricity with renewable power. You’ve gone green in as many ways as you can – so why is your carbon footprint still bigger than that of your city-dwelling cousin? Much of it comes down to land use and transportation.

A new report by the International Institute for Environment and Development has confirmed that urbanites generate significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions than those who live in rural and suburban areas.

From Yale 360:

While the high concentration of population and businesses found in cities are often seen as a pollution “problem,” researchers found that “high densities and large population concentrations can also bring a variety of advantages for … environmental management.” For instance, while New York City emitted 58.3 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2005, the per capita average of 7.1 tons was about a third of the national average of 23.92 tons per capita in 2004, according to the study. The density of buildings and high use of public transportation in New York contributes to the lower individualemissions, according to the report. Likewise, the 2006 per capita emissions average in London was about 6.18 tons – about 55 percent of the UK’s 2004 average of 11.19 tons.

It makes sense. After all, people who live in suburban and rural areas have to drive pretty much everywhere, and that has a huge impact on carbon footprint. While rural residents who need to run to the market for a forgotten dinner ingredient will have to get in their car and travel for miles, urbanites can simply walk down the street in many cases. Plus, urban dwellings tend to be vertical, taking up less land.

We’ll always have people living in rural areas, and that’s okay – but urban living is more eco-friendly in so many ways. The green cities of the future will revolve around public transportation, walkability and vertical housing and as more people move from the suburbs to the cities, it’s quite  likely that we’ll see a big decrease in overall carbon emissions.

Link [Yale 360]

Google Rebuts Claims about CO2 Cost of Searches

The UK’s Times reported last Sunday that doing two searches on Google uses about as much energy as boiling a kettle of water, an allegation that Google is denying on their official blog. The information in theTimes article was supposedly based on research by Harvard University physicist Alex Wissner-Gross and delves into the “secrecy” of Google’s energy consumption and carbon footprint.

From the Times Online:

While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.”

Though Google says it is in the forefront of green computing, its search engine generates high levels of CO2 because of the way it operates. When you type in a Google search for, say, “energy saving tips”, your request doesn’t go to just one server. It goes to several competing against each other.

It may even be sent to servers thousands of miles apart. Google’s infrastructure sends you data from whichever produces the answer fastest. The system minimises delays but raises energy consumption. Google has servers in the US, Europe, Japan and China.

Google responded by explaining on their blog why the “7g of CO2” number is “many times too high”.

Google is fast — a typical search returns results in less than 0.2 seconds. Queries vary in degree of difficulty, but for the average query, the servers it touches each work on it for just a few thousandths of a second. Together with other work performed before your search even starts (such as building the search index) this amounts to 0.0003 kWh of energy per search, or 1 kJ. For comparison, the average adult needs about 8000 kJ a day of energy from food, so a Google search uses just about the same amount of energy that your body burns in ten seconds.

In terms of greenhouse gases, one Google search is equivalent to about 0.2 grams of CO2. The current EU standard for tailpipe emissions calls for 140 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven, but most cars don’t reach that level yet. Thus, the average car driven for one kilometer (0.6 miles for those in the U.S.) produces as many greenhouse gases as a thousand Google searches.

On Monday, January 12th, Alex Wissner-Gross denied singling out Google, saying his study focuses on the internet in general and that the Times apparently had an ax to grind with Google. Tech News World has the scoop:

“Our work has nothing to do with Google. Our focus was exclusively on the Web overall, and we found that it takes on average about 20 milligrams of CO2 per second to visit a Web site.”

And the example involving tea kettles? “They did that. I have no idea where they got those statistics,” Wissner-Gross said.

Wissner-Gross, who manages the Web site CO2stats.com to help educate people about energy efficiencies on the Internet, has been inundated with press requests since the Times story was published. The Times quoted him correctly in the story as saying, “A Google search has a definite environmental impact” and “Google operates huge data centers around the world that consume a great deal of power,” he confirmed.

“I don’t think anybody would disagree with those statements,” Wissner-Gross said. “Everything online has a definite environmental impact. I think everybody can agree on that, including Google.”

As Fast Company points out amidst all of these accusations and rebuttals, the real story here is that there is, and will continue to be, dialogue about the energy costs of the information age. It’s a reminder that there’s a carbon cost to everything we do on the computer, from watching videos to playing games. Awareness is spreading about how our use of such technology has an impact on the earth’s resources, and that will undoubtedly continue in the years to come.

Link [Times Online] + [Google] + [Tech News World] + [Fast Company]

U.S. Army Bases Going Green to Save Money

While American military bases may be implementing green strategies into their operations – like calculating their carbon footprints – they’re not necessarily going to be on the front-line in the fight against global warming. They’re only interested in environmental measures that will save them money and stay in line with their main strategic war-fighting goals. But, their efforts will be a big help anyway, as they cut back on emissions and turn to renewable energy sources.

Plenty Mag has the scoop on what the military is doing to go green:

Many military bases now use renewable energy: California’s China Lake naval facility is powered by a geothermal plant, while Nevada’s Nellis Air Force Base gets juice from a massive solar array.

At North Carolina’s Fort Bragg, troops train in mock villages built from recycled shipping containers. The container construction cuts waste and energy use, while reducing the price tag from $400,000 per village to just $25,000.

At forward operating bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, 85 percent of energy goes to power AC units that keep troops and equipment cool. Spraying foam insulation directly onto tents has cut energy losses by 45 percent, reducing the amount of diesel trucked to the front line and decreasing convoys’ exposure to attacks.

Of course, Plenty Mag points out that the military is also committing plenty of eco-sins and that isn’t likely to change any time soon. Among the offenses are heavy reliance on coal, whale-harming sonar from Navy ships, use of depleted uranium munitions, hogging funds that could be used for environmental projects and, perhaps worst of all, aiming to sidestep rules governing Superfund sites and air pollution, skipping costly clean-ups on 129 heavily-polluted sites and redefining “hazardous materials” to exclude unexploded munitions.

Naturally, we’d love to see the military find ways of operating that don’t put the environment and human health at risk. Hopefully more changes will occur over the next 8 years of Barack Obama’s leadership – we can dream!

Link [Plenty Mag]
Photo credit: Nellis Air Force Base

Bill Gates has 10,000 Times the Carbon Footprint of an Average American

Americans already have large carbon footprints: where the world average is 4 tons, the American average is 20. A study at MIT found that no matter what you do, if you live in America, you’re automatically going to have a large footprint – whether you’re homeless, a child or a Buddhist monk – because our public services and infrastructure create a ‘baseline’ of 8.5 tons, which no American can drop below. But, even though you won’t find someone with a tiny carbon footprint here, you will find people with huge ones – especially the richest man in the country, Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

EcoGeek has it:

Bill Gates, specifically chosen for the study, has a carbon footprint about 10,000 times the average. Of course, he also has produced a great deal of wealth and growth for the world. In general, the researchers found that as income rises, so do emissions. A homeless person, who ate at soup kitchens and slept in shelters, had an average carbon footprint of 8.5 tonnes, still twice as much as the world average. Even monks, who lived half the year in the forest, had carbon footprints of 10.5 tonnes.

Big shocker – the richest techie nerd in the world has a huge CO2 footprint. This guy has more giant, expensive, energy sucking toys than you can possibly imagine. He has a house with a 3-car garage – for his servants. At last count, old Bill was worth $56 billion.

Link [EcoGeek]
Photo credit: Mugshots.org

Biofuels and Carbon Credits: Greening Up the Concert Industry

The music industry is renowned for its excess. More often than not, you can see some really stunning examples of wastefulness during the concerts themselves, backstage and in every facet of preparation and production. It’s not just wasted energy – pollution and trash are huge factors as well. Many musicians have been willing to participate in efforts to raise awareness – like the Live Earth concerts – but not to actually make changes in their own lifestyles or even their regular performances.

The Economist has it:

According to National Geographic’s Green Guide, a typical stadium concert releases 500 to 1000 tons of carbon dioxide, which is between 25 and 50 times more than the average American produces in a year. That number does not even take into account fans’ transport, the immense amount of garbage produced or any fire-spewing Kiss-style pyrotechnic displays. Reverb, an advocacy group promoting environmentally responsible music tours, estimates that fans’ commutes can quintuple the carbon cost of a show.

Despite these costs, tour schedules are growing longer and more intensive. Consumers are downloading (both legally and illegally) more individual tracks and buying fewer complete albums; bands need to make their money somewhere.

Some bands and concert organisers have taken strides to minimise touring’s environmental impact. Festivals such as Lollapalooza, an American summer institution, and Britain’s massive Glastonbury Festival have switched to biofuel-powered generators. The organisers of last summer’s Osheaga Festival in Montreal went one step further: they hired Hydro Quebec to supply their main stage with emission-free geothermal energy. Reverb has encouraged organisers to offer reusable aluminum canteens rather than plastic water-bottles, and also set up “Eco-Villages”, with information on how to minimise one’s carbon footprints, outside concert venues.

Since so many bands are mostly all talk and no action, there’s still a lot of waste going on despite efforts to curb it. Some bands claim to be green and then go and schedule a concert at places like the Gorge Amphitheather, which is 150 miles east of Seattle and far from any public transportation. In order to make a real change, bands would need to commit to scaling back their shows and holding them at venues accessible by public transit. Maybe that could help us take concerts back to their roots – intimate experiences enjoying the music you love played live right in front of you, not giant impersonal productions where the band is a football field away.

Fans now have the option of carpooling to and from shows thanks to Reverb partnering with PickupPal. The service, which we told you about last month, provides a venue for passengers to be matched up with drivers to cut back on the number of vehicles on the road. Reverb is also currently working with acts like John Mayer, Norah Jones, Kelly Clarkson, the Blue Man Group and Ben Folds to reduce the carbon footprints of their tours.

Link [The Economist]
Photo credit: Flickr user monkeyatlarge

Adults in Britain Should Have to Carry Carbon Ration Cards, Say MPs

MPs are pushing for a controversial new program in Great Britain: carbon ration cards. Every adult would have to carry one and would need to use it when filling up at the pump, buying airline tickets and using energy to power their homes. Britain has been trying to find a way to cut CO2 emissions without penalizing the poor, and the Environmental Audit Committee sees it as the fairest way.

From Mail Online:

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

Anyone who exceeds their entitlement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who haven’t used up their allowance. The amount paid would be driven by market forces and the deal done through a specialist company.

MPs, led by Tory Tim Yeo, say the scheme could be more effective at cutting greenhouse gas emissions than green taxes.

B For the scheme to work, the Government would need to give out 45million carbon cards – each one linked to a personal carbon account. Every year, the account would be credited with a notional amount of CO2 in kilograms.

Every time someone makes a purchase of petrol, energy or airline tickets, they would use up credits. A return flight from London to Rome would, for instance, use up 900kg of CO2 credits, while 10 litres of petrol would use up 23kg.

Mr Yeo, chairman of the committee said personal carbon trading rewarded those with a low carbon footprint with cash.

I have no idea whether something like this would actually work, but I like this line of thinking. Making people personally responsible for how much energy they consume would be a great way to control CO2 emissions. Undoubtedly, though, citizens would be angry about it – it’s definitely an idea ahead of its time. The system would have to be fairly complicated in order to account for those who live in the country and depend upon their vehicles for transportation, are housebound and need to heat their homes during the day and those who work at night when little public transportation is available. I’d like to see them work on the idea further, though.

Link [Mail Online]
Photo credit: Flickr user futureatlas.com

Tom Brady Rewards Charitable Linemen with Gas Guzzling SUVs

Tom Brady, quarterback for the New England Patriots, is apparently a fairly generous guy. So generous that he gifted three of his teammates with expensive gas guzzling SUVs. He also gifted the rest of the world with increased air pollution and energy consumption. Way to go!

From Green Daily:

At a press conference celebrating the success of his collaboration with Best Buddies International, he thanked three of his teammates who had also donated their time and money to the cause. In return for their generosity (and for “their protection”), Brady gave the offensive linemen really expensive cars to drive around next season — which sounds nice (because hey, who wouldn’t be excited about a $50,000 automobile?), but when you consider that the Audi Q7 gets 12-14 mpg, these hot rides suddenly seem a little less appealing.

Especially considering that Audi has been working on a hybrid version of this model for almost a year, it seems silly to dish out that forward-thinking SUV’s gas guzzling cousins instead.

When this news broke, Green Daily prefaced their story with ‘No one wants to be a jerk about Tom Brady’. Well, I will- screw Tom Brady. I’m no sports fan and all I know about Tom Brady is he left his pregnant girlfriend for Leo DiCaprio’s supermodel leftovers. No doubt his charitable giving makes him a better man than a lot of people out there, but, hey Tom – why not consider future generations of children, too? These giant irresponsible vehicles are going to make the world a less pleasant place for your son’s generation and those that come after him.

Link [Green Daily]

Conservative Group Plans to Waste Tons of Energy on ‘Carbon Belch Day’

Oooh, sometimes you hear a bit of news that makes you feel like you’re bordering on a killing spree fueled by murderous rage. This is one of those stories. Conservative grassroots organization Grassfire.org is calling for people to waste as much energy as possible on June 12th, telling people to do things like “hosting a barbecue, going for a drive, watching television, leaving a few lights on, or even smoking a few cigars”.

Information Week has it:

The point: the group wants to “help Americans break free from the ‘carbon footprint guilt’ being imposed by Climate Alarmists.”

Grassfire.org says it’s skeptical over claims that man-made sources of carbon dioxide emissions — from automobile exhausts to manufacturing plants — are raising the Earth’s temperature at a dangerous rate. Theories about global warming were highlighted by former Vice President Al Gore’s 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth.

Grassfire.org president Steve Elliott, in a statement, said such theories are off the mark. “It’s time for Americans to purge ourselves of the false guilt that Al Gore and the Climate Alarmists have placed on us,” Elliott said.

Grassfire.org said it chose June 12 as the day it wants Americans to rev up their SUVs because it coincides with expected debate in Congress over a $1.2 billion carbon tax rebate program. “Carbon Belch Day will have at least as much impact on the so-called ‘planetary emergency’ of man-made global warming as the goofy save the earth mandates telling us to turn our lights off for an hour,” said Elliott.

If this sounds like an April Fool’s Day joke, check your calendar. It’s for real. There are actually douche nozzles like this out there in the world. These people really don’t get it – they’re living in a state of denial. No doubt, they’re part of the camp that thinks those of us who care about the planet we all live on and depend upon for survival are just trying to rob them of ‘the American way of life’. Because apparently, being an American means being a total self-absorbed asshole.

That’s right, conservative douchebags: watch out, we’re coming for you and your Norman Rockwell America. The one that exists SOLELY INSIDE YOUR OWN HEADS. We are bringing you reality, like it or not. Scratch that, you’re bringing it upon yourself with idiotic moves like Carbon Belch Day. Maybe you’ll be lucky and die before we start to see the real effects of how our wasteful lifestyle has harmed the planet, but your kids and grandkids may not be so lucky. So go on being selfish – it’s only the entire world at stake.

Link [Information Week]
Photo credit: Grassfire.org

The Simpsons Go Green(ish) for the Krustyland Ride at Universal Studios

As if the Simpsons could get any cooler. The new Simpsons-themed ride at Universal Studios is going to be green less polluting due to the installation of 27,675 LED lights, which will save 662kWh a day (about what an average house uses in a month).

From underwire:

Universal Studios Hollywood’s new Simpsons Ride celebrates the carnival-barker-style commercialism you’d expect from an attraction named after a greedy capitalist clown, but there’s more than meets the eye: Krustyland is engineered to echo the eco-friendly sensibility dramatized in The Simpsons Movie last summer, which found the city of Springfield encased in a giant bubble after Homer dumps garbage in the lake.

According to Universal officials, the Simpsons Ride boasts the largest lighting installation of LED lamps in theme park history. The ride’s 2,582 energy-saving LED lights expend 27,675 watts per hour. That’s less than a third of the 82,909 watts that would have been consumed by standard incandescent lighting used by the conventionally powered attraction previously on site, according to Universal.

End result: energy savings of 662,796 watts per day. As Homer might say in between donuts: Mmmmm, kilowatts!

No matter how you slice it, theme parks aren’t green. Typically, natural areas are clear-cut and wildlife is displaced to make room for fantasyland attractions where tons of electricity is used and people generate trash like nobody’s business. And, let’s not even go into the fact that we remove real wildlife to replace it with a cleaned-up version of it that lets us ‘enjoy it on our own terms’. However, at least having LED lights is trying, right? It’s better than what they’ve been doing so far. Baby steps are better than the status quo.

Link [underwire]

Jet Sharing: For Celebrities Who Don’t Want to Try Too Hard

Gee, it must be hard to be a celebrity. You have to deal with annoyingly adoring fans, are inundated by free stuff at every turn and get flak from us peons about flitting around in private jets. Cause, as we all know, there are so many good reasons why you can’t fly commercial. Like the fact that you’re accompanied by a truckload of baggage and multiple employees who wait on you hand and foot. So, even when you have all these dumb environmentalists telling you it’s really bad for the planet when you fly a private jet, you just aren’t going to stop, no matter what. Well, guess what, your highnesses: now you can share a private jet with other celebs, so you can tell people you’re ‘green’.

Treehugger has it:

If you look at Madonna, her carbon footprint in 2006 was estimated to be 1,018 tons – or 100 times the average British citizen’s. Not only do celebs fly a lot, the more famous they get, the more likely they are to want the convenience and luxury of a private jet. So now you know why Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt never look jet-lagged!

London-based Private Jet Club has launched a service to pair up different jet-setters going to some common cities to reduce their costs and (incidentally) their per-person carbon footprint – and calling it jet pooling. While jet pooling may sound like a ridiculous bit of greenwash, the CO2 load of flying solo in many jets is astronomical, making jet pooling better than nothing.

Sure, it’s better than nothing. I’d much rather hear about, say, all of those LA-based actors flying to Cannes in one private jet than all of them flying separately. So, there’s that. Here’s hoping that some of them will actually do it!

Link [Treehugger] + [Private Jet Club]
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Simon I-Could-Give-A-Shit Cowell Tops List of Celebrity Polluters

Appalling and horrendous: not just the singing on American Idol (who watches that these days?) but also host Simon Cowell’s dirty habits that have made him the top celebrity polluter. Simon’s average carbon emissions are 457g/km.

Known for flying around in a private jet, he has said that he prefers to travel that way because, as the Guardian quotes him, “the champagne’s better and you can smoke, which is a rare pleasure these days at $36,000 feet”.

The rest of the list is, in descending order, Jay Kay (this guy has enough money to be a top polluter?), David Beckham (no surprise there), Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean? WTF!) and 50 Cent (again, no surprise). Bentleys, Hummers, Rolls Royce Phantoms and Ferraris are among the many vehicles they own. Apparently, one or two mega-expensive luxury cars isn’t enough for one person – they each own an average of four.

Surprisingly, 4 out of 5 of them are Brits, not Americans. I wouldn’t have pegged that! Americans are far more renowned for over-consumption of just about everything, so it seems natural that American celebrities would top the smog-peddler list. Learn something new every day! Time to step up the green education, Great Britain, you’re not looking too good.

Link [Ecorazzi] + [The Guardian]

Photo credit: FOX

Bad Carbon Karma: Lawyer Flies from Oregon to Saudi Arabia Every Three Weeks

Thomas Nelson, a lawyer from Oregon, regularly flies back and forth to Saudi Arabia to visit a client who can’t fly to the U.S. That’s ‘regularly’ not as in once or twice a year, but every three weeks. Nelson says he’s forced to do so because his client faces charges here for financing terrorism, and that he’s afraid to communicate via telephone or email due to possible surveillance.

From the New York Times:

Because he is constantly shifting time zones to see his client face to face, “I just don’t sleep normally anymore,” Mr. Nelson said. “But I don’t have a choice. It’s very clear to me that anything I say to my client or to other lawyers in this case is being recorded.”

Across the country, and especially here in Oregon, it seems, lawyers who represent suspects in terrorism-related investigations complain that their ability to do their jobs is being hindered by the suspicion that the government is listening in, using the eavesdropping authority it obtained — or granted itself — after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

There are all kinds of issues in play here, not the least of which is the creepy fact that the government is able to violate lawyer-client privilege by snooping on their communications. But there’s an unspoken aspect to it: what about all of the carbon being produced by the constant unnecessary flights? Oregon to Saudi Arabia is a very long trip – and as the article suggests, Nelson isn’t the only one making frequent flights like this. I can only imagine how large this guy’s carbon footprint is. It’s stupid and definitely bad for the earth…

Link [New York Times]

Photo credit: Karl Dolenc

‘Green’ Celebs Sting & Trudi Admit They’re Not Doing So Great on the Carbon Footprint Front

Environmental experts recently rated Sting’s band, The Police, as the ‘dirtiest in the world’ based on the amount of pollution they generated on their most recent world tour. Yet, Sting and his wife, Trudi Styler, are vocal advocates of awareness about climate change and CO2 emissions. Hypocrites much? Yep, and they admit it, which is the refreshing part. While some celebrities would try to explain it all away, this couple says they know they’re a part of the problem.

Ecorazzi has it:

“Miss Styler tried to shift a little of the blame on to her musician husband, who is 56. ‘When it comes to the carbon footprint, Sting puts his hand up immediately and says ‘I’m a musician and I have a huge carbon-footprint’, she said. She then asked: ‘Are we being hypocritical?’ before seeming to answer the question herself. ‘He has a 750-person crew to bring around the world and it is a difficult challenge. I would like to think that we both work pretty hard for the rights of indigenous people and for the rights of conservation of the Amazon rainforest, but we do need to get around. It’s a difficult one.’”

Styler herself often flies around in private jets and helicopters, and is known for one incident in which she flew a private chef 100 miles just to make her a bowl of pasta.

Michael at Ecorazzi made a good point when he noted that Sting and Trudi would be better off sticking to charitable contributions than preaching about sustainability, since saying one thing and doing another isn’t going to get them any brownie points. My question is, why not cut back? No doubt, with the amount of money these two have, they could afford to make some big changes. While it’s great that they’re willing to admit to their flaws, the pasta incident alone shows they have a long way to go before they could ever be considered ‘green’ role models.

Link [Ecorazzi]

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

EarthFirst Blog Week in Review April 7-11

It’s okay to stare. We love the attention. And we KNOW you noticed our sexy new look. Now wipe up that drool pool on your desk and read us for our articles. We have some great stuff for you this week like a hockeyplaying bear, a video visit to that huge mass of plastic trash out in the pacific we’ve been talking so much about, and defrosting disease-ridden dead people! So, if for any odd reason you’ve been able to take your eyes off us at any time during the past few days, take a peek at our stuff again just for fun.

• Confessions of A Greenwasher: Like an AA Meeting, but with More Guilt
• Gather ‘Round the Festivus Pole, George Costanza’s Getting on the Green Team!
• Bored Japanese Guy + Recycled Chopsticks = Awesome Green Canoe
• Disease Infected Corpses Popping Up Through the Tundra, Courtesy of Global Warming
• Seattle Moves to Tear Down the Squirrelman’s Beautiful Waterfront Treehouse
• Common Sense Breaks Out: Car Buyers Dump Their SUVs for the Smallest Cars
• 
• Calculate your Carbon Footprint the Easy Way
• Watch Al Gore’s Awesomely Updated Slideshow from TED: The Urgency of Manbearpig
• Because You Can Train Bears to Do Just About Anything: The Hockey Edition
• Brilliant! Drought-Stricken Florida Gives Nestle Unlimited Water for $230
• It’s Mind Blowing Time: VBS.TV Visits the Garbage Filled Pacific Ocean Gyre
• Home Refrigeration 2.0- The Oceania Refrigerator Brings The Sexy Green Noise
• Axis of Corporate Evil: Taco Bell, Wal-Mart, and the NRA Hired Black Ops Private Security Team to Spy on Green Activists

Next Page »