Food prices are soaring. Your bill at the grocery store in Canada has gone up and people in many other countries where up to half of incomes are spent on food are even worse off. The reasons are diverse, ranging from hikes in crude oil and labor costs, poor harvests and regulatory policies in various countries (North Queensland Register).
The biofuels industry is a factor, even if its significance is overstated. As corn gets diverted to fuel production, there is less for people to eat. Less supply along with increased demand means higher prices at the grocery store.
But aren't biofuels the eco-friendly panacea that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and help lower the threat of global warming?
Technologies like using cellulosic ethanol made from woody debris are a cause for optimism in the long term.
But new laws to improve the efficiency of our homes, transportation and industry, along with protection and conservation of existing forests, grasslands and savannas really have the most potential for reinforcing sustainability.
Jonathon Narvey is the Principal Consultant at WRITEIMAGE. He blogs about politics and life in Vancouver at Currents.
That's a question that can plague even the most committed people. If you're swapping CFL bulbs for incandescents and shrinking your carbon footprint and composting and recycling, but your neighbors aren't doing any of that, you might think your efforts are for naught. Michael Pollantakes on that question in the front-of-the-book section of this week's Green Issue of The New York Times Magazine. There are a lot of intriguing ideas -- current and historical -- in Pollan's essay, as well as an idea that can help and has helped in the past.
Sweden is one of the greenest countries on the planet. The strategies, processes, policies and approaches they've developed are all inspiring, working examples that other countries could follow. NBC's Anne Thompson has the details.
Here's a surprising fact: a standard gas mower can emit the same amount of common air pollutants in one hour as driving a new car for over 550 kms!
The Clean Air Foundation has already retired 16,000 of these dirty beasts, and to encourage you to join this year's campaign they have partnered with Home Depot to offer a $100 rebate to offset the costs of replacing your polluting lawn mower with a push or electric model.
Or you can join the lawn-less revolution and replace your imported grass with native plants. Natural species need little or no watering, and you'll never have to mow the lawn again!
Al Gore has revised his famous presentation for the amazing TED conference.
Global warming may be happening faster than Gore thought, but he's more optimistic than ever that a mass movement is about emerge.
We listen to the radio show Studio 360 every week. Not just because it's eclectic. Not just because it's the work of Kurt Andersen, whose work we've enjoyed since before he co-founded SPY, and not because one of us contributed to it, but because even when the show covers something we don't think we'll like or be interested in, it proves us wrong, and we are interested. When the show covers something we already know and like -- The Great Gatsby, Moby-Dick, Miles Davis's Kind Of Blue -- we learn something or get a fresh perspective.
The program's mandate is "covering creativity, pop culture and the arts." And this week it's looking at how environmental smarts and concern manifest themselves in those arenas. And thanks to the Internets and the podcasting, Studio 360 is on your device on your schedule on your terms.
Cutting down timber for lumber doesn't have to mean clearcutting. One California lumber company has a better way to get wood. The story from NBC's Environmental Correspondent, Anne Thompson.
The winter clouds have lifted, the sun is shining, and the trees and flowers are in bloom. Spring is in the air.
Of course, this means it’s time for the annual operation known as Spring Cleaning. A few plucky neat-freaks have already gotten an early start – but most residents on the rainy West Coast have likely put it off for the moment, setting aside the new and unfamiliar sunny weekends for fun outdoors.
There’s no avoiding it, though: the big clean is going to happen. And it doesn't have to be an environmental disaster.
Every year, tons of eco-unfriendly antibacterial products, corrosive liquids, and toxic chemicals contaminate our homes and filter into the environment. Cleaning your house should never mean giving yourself headaches, depression, and digestive problems. And there's no reason why marine animals ought to be put in harm's way because you want a shiny bathroom.
Bet you didn't know that you could make furniture polish out of olive oil and lemon juice. Or that you can just use baking soda and water to clean your oven.
There are plenty of excellent green cleaning products available – and keep in mind that even "natural" cleaning products can be dangerous if used in improper quantities and combinations. Here are some recipes for making your own greener cleaning products from common household items.
Jonathon Narvey is principal consultant at WRITEIMAGE. He blogs about politics and life in Vancouver at Currents.
Like so many Canadian kids, I got my love of nature from two sources: Owl magazine and David Suzuki's The Nature of Things.
My grandmother was responsible for that. She gave me a subscription to the magazine every birthday and was dead-set against TV unless it was the latest episode of Dr. Suzuki's long-running series.
It's a special thrill to see these two inspirations come together this month, and I know my granny would have been so proud.
That's the title of a tune by Kid Creole and the Coconuts, the last track on their 1983 record, titled "Tropical Gangsters" in the U.K. and "Wise Guy" everywhere else. It's also the situation for people who catch salmon commercially on the west coast of the United States. No fish today or for the rest of the season.
A family-run dairy operation converted from straight-ahead dairy to a cheese factory a few years back. The cows supply the power. How many other farms could adapt and adopt this model? The Wisconsin cheese factory gives a whole new meaning to "green cheese." Can green eggs and ham be far behind?
We only just found out that last week was Green Week on "LIVE With Regis and Kelly" (although the end of the week was Regisless, with Bryant Gumbel filling in). The show had technology maven John Quain (a.k.a. JQ) explain some salient things about technology and the environment. (Who, you might be wondering, is Gelman?)
Slate's Daniel Gross figured that hybrid cars sell to a predictable, easily-identified type: the people David Brooks wrote about in his book Bobos In Paradise. They're the people who used to reliably drive Volvos or Saabs.
But hybrid sales numbers confound that expectation.
"By saving the woodland caribou's remaining Boreal Forest
habitat, we'll also help protect one of the world's largest natural
carbon reserves and slow the effects of climate change."
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) is gathering signatures to convince the Federal Government to identify and
protect Woodland caribou habitat under the Species at Risk Act.
In March, tons of water were released from the Glen Canyon dam to help restore the Grand Canyon's ecosystem. This week, researchers measured the changes the "big flush" brought.
One student at Pittwater High School north of Sydney was curious about solar power. So he installed a couple of panels on the roof of his house to power his room. Then he convinced his father to change the entire house to solar power. Then his father convinced the school. Ian Williams reports.
Used to be that making environmentally better choices cost more. Of course, that depends on how you calculate "cost," since "cost doesn't just mean the money you're spending. But that's changing. Author David Bach says making more environmentally friendly choices will also mean more green in your pocket. It's all in his new book, "Go Green, Live Rich," which he discussed with Matt Lauer on the "Today" show.
When talk turns to fossil fuels contributing to global warming, ethanol -- usually made from corn -- is often raised as part of the solution. But it's contributing to the problem, not solving it. That's the last line, in fact, in Michael Grunwald's cover story in this week's edition of Time. The rest of the story lays out very clearly where things stand in the biofuel and alternative fuel situation right now globally. He also details how politicians use ethanol to greenwash their energy policies. It's a thorough update worth reading and sharing, as well as remembering the next time you hear corn touted as a substitute for fossil fuel.
Though the week-long climate talks here in Bangkok are not quite over, the final conclusion is pretty clear: we're not a whole lot closer to protecting the climate and avoiding dangerous climate change. The UN talks have to conclude within two years, so this was the first of eight meetings between Bali (December 2007) and Copenhagen (December 2009) and countries here were obviously not feeling much urgency.
One part of this week's agenda did conclude. The Kyoto negotiating track considers what commitments industrialized countries will be agreeing to in the next phase of Kyoto, beginning in 2013. The crucial decision in these discussions is the emission reduction targets: how deeply and how quickly will rich countries have to reduce its global warming gases. However, this week the discussion was about how to improve Kyoto by including more emissions sources—like the previously excluded international aviation and international shipping—and how to improve carbon trading and other mechanisms so it leads to a better environmental outcome.
The good news is that emissions from international transportation were included in the final text that was agreed to by all countries. The bad news is that nothing was decided. The text is a page and a half long and lays out a whole range of issues that will have to be discussed and decided upon in future meetings. "Bunker fuels," the fuel used in aviation and shipping, will be just one of them.
The other negotiating track, as of this writing, has still not concluded. Those talks are about what developing countries will have to contribute in terms of actions and commitments in the next phase of Kyoto. But we already know this meeting's outcome: a schedule for what will be discussed and in what order in the three remaining meetings of 2008. That's right: the international community took all of this week to decide in what order these future talks will occur.
Now I realize that the human tendency for procrastination is strong. And I realize, as many seasoned UN veterans pointed out here, that countries needed this first post-Bali meeting to assess each other's positions. But we were told in Bali not to expect too much, that Bali would be about setting a framework for future discussions, that the negotiations would get serious next time. Now we're told that the Germany talks in June will be where the real talks begin. In Germany, will countries be pointing to Ghana in August? Or Poland in December? Or maybe we'll be told to wait until 2009, when there's a new U.S. president who believes in addressing global warming?
These global talks are very complex, with many, many details to be hammered out—not only the targets for industrialized countries and the commitments by the developing world, but also what strategies will be needed to adapt to climate changes impacts, how will we share clean technologies, how do we reduce the cutting down of natural forests whether in Canada or the tropics, how do we pay for it all, etc. etc. etc. Though it sounds crazy to anyone who hasn’t gone to these UN meetings, two years is not a lot of time to finalize everything.
But maybe that's just because countries and negotiators don't take full advantage of opportunities like this week's. A little urgency right from the start might be a good idea.
An interesting discussion broke out today at the UN climate change talks in Bangkok (yes, every so often it happens). It involved how the Kyoto Protocol could be strengthened by including greenhouse gases or emitting sectors that had previously been excluded. Much of the discussion focused on emissions from international aviation and international shipping, what people here call "bunker fuels."
Both of these sectors are significant contributors to global warming. If either were countries, they’d be in the top 5 or 6 globally in terms of their contribution to polluting the atmosphere. More importantly, emissions from both sectors are rising fast, faster in fact than any other sector. Emissions from international flights, for example, have nearly doubled since 1990.
When the Kyoto Protocol was being negotiated back in 1997, the technical issues surrounding how to allocate the emissions were deemed too complicated. For example, when a ship or plane leaves one country, arrives in another, and maybe refuels in a third along the way, which country is responsible for the emissions? Nobody had easy answers, so the industry associations—the International Civil Aviation Association (ICAO) and the International Marine Organization (IMO)—were formally given the mandate of figuring out how to address their own emissions.
Ten years later, guess what's happened? Nothing. ICAO gave a presentation at the UN today whose message was essentially, "It’s really still too complicated." Many countries, including the EU-27 and Norway, have made the point that the barriers are political, not technical. Today, they made concrete suggestions. For example, emissions from international flights could be assigned to where planes refuel. Wow, that doesn't seem complicated at all.
The EU's message was pretty clear: Enough is enough. If the industries don’t want to come up with solutions, we should. So let's set up a working group to decide this at the UN.
Seems reasonable, after so much time. As expected, there was opposition from countries that serve as international shipping hubs (Panama) and aviation hubs (Singapore), who would probably prefer no regulation at all. Unfortunately, however, Canada also opposed having a UN discussion, though we did say we wanted these emissions addressed. Apparently, the Canadian government thinks the industries need just a little more time to figure things out.
Going green is good business these days. Larger corporations can devote huge resources to eco-friendly campaigns and improve their own practices to significantly cut their carbon footprint and energy use. Sun Microsystems’ energy efficient data centers are just one example of corporations trying to do the right thing.
But small businesses owners may be some of the last to adopt environmentally-friendly methods. Many owners struggling just to make a living and keep their clients happy think they just don’t have the time or money to spend going green.
Government initiatives in Canada or in other countries like Singapore to help small-to-medium businesses catch up to the green curve (Channel NewsAsia) are certainly encouraging. But business owners don’t have to wait for government to show them the way. There are plenty of things they can take right now.
The David Suzuki Nature Challenge at Work is an easy-to-use toolkit full of fun activities that can go on the job anywhere. Inspire your colleagues, customers and suppliers to green their lives. Click here and download your free copy today and start reaping the benefits of going green!
One Day Vancouver also has some great ideas, including simple things like enabling Energy Star features on your work computer is one option. Turn off machines and lights that aren’t being used. Put photocopiers into low-energy mode. Close window blinds in the summer to reduce the need for air-conditioning. Purchasing carbon credits to go carbon neutral is another option.
Quite often, the greener option is also the most cost-effective option. For small businesses that need to keep their eye on slim margins, green is good.
Jonathon Narvey is Principal consultant at WRITEIMAGE.
He blogs about politics and life in Vancouver at Currents.
...for the climate continues. It didn't end with the Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth" or the Nobel Prize. Instead, he's stepping up efforts on global warming. And the harder he campaigns in that global arena, the less interest he says he has for American electoral politics. What Al Gore's been doing, what he's doing now and what he'll be doing are all covered in this profile by Lesley Stahl for CBS's "60 Minutes."
Part One
Part Two (Gore's reaction to global warming deniers is right on the money.)
And here are a couple of the television commercials that form the first phase of the Gore-driven climate advertising campaign.
This week's UN meeting in Bangkok is illustrating how important it is that those who are most affected by global warming be involved in any discussions on what humanity will be doing about it. Increasingly, we are hearing some compelling testimony from poor countries that are most vulnerable and are, in fact, already facing impacts of climate change.
Take the negotiations that began here in Bangkok on actions and commitments from developing countries, and how industrialized countries can contribute to that action. Barbados spoke again today on behalf of 30 small island states, explaining how sea level rise will devastate its member countries, and urging very ambitious action. Barbados is arguing in fact that the atmosphere is already too full with global warming gases, and that average warming has to be severely limited (well below 2 degrees), based on very important new research. This position goes even further than any country, including European leaders, has called for in the past. Bangladesh and the Maldives, speaking for least developed countries here in Bangkok, have also urged similarly ambitious actions and targets.
These are the voices that are missing from other discussions on global warming. President Bush's approach, for example, is to gather the fifteen countries with the greatest emissions in one room to hammer out a deal. It is not surprising that ambition in that room is lacking, since they don’t hear from those who will most suffer from that lack of ambition—those most affected by intense rain events, drought, sea level rise, or Arctic melting. The G8, even when it includes the five rapidly industrializing developing countries, is similarly lacking. Those discussions can contribute some thinking, even progress, but the final, global regime to tackle climate change has to be done through the UN and include as many viewpoints and voices as possible.
However, what I hope can be avoided over the coming months, including here at this week's UN meeting, is a standoff between industrialized countries and the large, developing countries. To avoid this, rich countries have to be stepping up not only with commitments to cut their emissions of global warming gases much more deeply, but also with significant funding for use by developing countries to adapt to climate change, to access clean technology and to reduce deforestation. Once industrialized countries have shown willingness on these two fronts (cutting emissions, providing funds), they can then rightly expect the large, developing countries to take on commitments as well.
Both are needed, and the lack of trust that appears to exist right now threatens the least developed and particularly vulnerable countries the most. For Canada to call again for emission reductions from developing countries, as it did today, does not help. Especially given our history of inaction.
| 
Slate's Daniel Gross figured that hybrid cars sell to a predictable, easily-identified type: the people David Brooks wrote about in his book Bobos In Paradise. They're the people who used to reliably drive Volvos or Saabs.
We listen to the radio show Studio 360 every week. Not just because it's eclectic. Not just because it's the work of 
