The Future is Green

Is The Earth Full?

Thomas Friedman's Op-ed piece, "The Earth is Full,"  in todays New York Times was both deeply sobering and, at the same time, oddly hopeful.

Friedman writes, "You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?"

 The only answer, according to the Austrialian environmentalist, Paul Gilding, author of the new book “The Great Disruption: Why the Climate Crisis Will Bring On the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World,” can be denial.

Gilding expects dramatic changes in the way we live on Planet Earth. We are irrevocably headed for a Great Disruption, he says, due to the simple fact that, “If you cut down more trees than you grow, you run out of trees. If you put additional nitrogen into a water system, you change the type and quantity of life that water can support. If you thicken the Earth’s CO2 blanket, the Earth gets warmer," all of which, he says will change the way the planet's whole ecosystem behaves, with social, economic, and life support impacts." It's not speculation, Gilding asserts, "this is high school science.”

The more hopeful part of his message, however, is that as these impacts hit, “our response will be proportionally dramatic, mobilizing as we do in war. We will change at a scale and speed we can barely imagine today, completely transforming our economy, including our energy and transport industries, in just a few short decades.”

The consumer-driven growth model that has led us to where we are today, Gilding believes, is irrevocably broken. But his conclusion is that we will be forece to move to a more happiness-driven growth model, based on people working less and owning less.

“How many people,” Gilding asks, “lie on their death bed and say, ‘I wish I had worked harder or built more shareholder value,’ and how many say, ‘I wish I had gone to more ballgames, read more books to my kids, taken more walks?’ To do that, you need a growth model based on giving people more time to enjoy life, but with less stuff.”

Are we really ready for that? Gilding thinks we're closer than you might think. "We either allow collapse to overtake us," he says, "or develop a new sustainable economic model. We will choose the latter. We may be slow, but we’re not stupid.”

Plan B: Mobilizing to Save Civilization," hosted by Matt Damon on PBS March 30

Lester Brown's visionary book, “Plan B: Mobilizing to Save Civilization,” has been on my top ten list for several years. Now, a documentary based on the book will be broadcast on PBS on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 at 10 p.m, hosted by Academy Award winner Matt Damon. I encourage you to watch.

Appearing with Lester Brown are Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, Pulitzer Prize winner Tom Friedman, former Governor and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, along with other scholars and scientists. Parts of the film were shot on location in China, Japan, Korea, India, Italy, Turkey, Bangladesh, Zambia, Haiti, and the United States.

Describing the film, the LA Times says, “The scope is wide, the photography compelling, the presentation is crisp. Take notice unless you’ve already booked passage to another galaxy.”

What makes “Plan B” so fascinating for me is that it provides a slew of hopeful and realistic strategies to avoid the growing threat of global warming, while, at the same time, strengthening the ecomony. If the film is half as good as the book, it will be an hour well spent.

What Is Nature Worth? A New Animated Video on the Cost of Biodiversity Loss

Whatever you are doing right now, I encourage you to take a 3-minute break and watch "Big Question: What Is Nature Worth?", an eye-opening animated video that offers a fresh look at global biodiversity loss - not only what it is costing humanity, but also what we can do about it.

"Big Question: What Is Nature Worth:?" is part of Momentum magazine's biodiversity issue (http://www.environment.umn.edu/momentum) and was inspired by the Natural Capital Project – a partnership between Stanford University, The Nature Conservancy, the University of Minnesota and the World Wildlife Fund.

I thought it was worth passing along.

Green Remodeling Tips: Does Going Green Add Value to Your Home?

 

First of all, a big thank you to everyone who has bought a copy of my book, Practical Green Remodeling. As of a moment ago, Amazon.com's sales ranking show that it is

• #1 in Home & Garden > Sustainable Living>Energy Efficiency,
• and #2 in Home & Garden > How-to & Home Improvements > Remodeling & Renovation 

Here is another excerpt from the book (with a few new edits):

What’s my motivation for going green?

Funny you should ask. You have two choices, really. Do you want to be totally hard nosed and practical, and just do things that directly benefit your family? Or do you want to get all environmental and tree huggerish? Save the whales and so forth.

If you’re just in it for yourself, you can stick with things that make the house more comfortable and economical to run. Concentrate on cutting your monthly utility bills, and use more durable materials and construction methods so it will cost less to maintain.  And forget about the rest of the population; just worry about the people inside the house. Do things to reduce toxins and improve the indoor air quality - for purely selfish reasons.

Or, if you’re seriously determined to try and save the planet, you could go the other way entirely. Not be so selfish. Remodel in ways that cut energy use in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce waste and conserve natural resources, and cut pollution. And vote with your wallet – refuse to buy materials and products that are environmentally harmful, or contain toxic compounds – which will drive down the price of those materials, to the benefit of everyone. In other words, you would make the house easier on the planet, more comfortable, more economical to operate, less expensive to maintain, better for your health, - for purely altruistic reasons.

What’s that you say? They both sound like exactly the same thing? Well, um, now that you mention it, yes, actually, they are. I have to admit, you’ve got a point there.

But what’s the payoff?

To answer that you have to ask yourself, what creates value? One of the first things homeowners want to know about any improvement is, will I it be a good investment? Will the added value justify the expense? But what is our standard for judging value? Is it just about how much the home will sell for?

Most home improvements do not add as much value to the house as they initially cost. A new kitchen that costs $50,000 typically adds less than $40,000 to the home’s resale value. On average, most renovations add anywhere from 65% to 85% of their cost to the home’s value.

So why do we do it? The answer for most people is that part of the value comes from the added enjoyment or functionality they get from the newly improved home. You might, for example, select a particularly attractive ceramic tile for your bathroom just because you like it, even though it costs more than a cheaper option that doesn’t turn you on. When you eventually sell the house, it is unlikely that your choice of tile will alter the price a buyer is willing to pay. But every day, when you walked into the bathroom it gave you pleasure. That’s worth something.

Adding a deck to the back of your house typically adds about 75% of its cost to the home’s value. But over the years you’ll spend many summer evenings relaxing on that deck, barbecuing, entertaining friends and family. The pleasure you get from having that deck means that, for you, it was money well spent.

But what about less tangible – or at least, less visible – improvements? If you install better ventilation and choose non-toxic materials that don’t endanger your family’s health, isn’t that worth something, even if the cost is slightly higher? What is the return on an investment that provides improved indoor air quality, reducing the likelihood that your children will suffer with allergies or asthma?

What if you have strong convictions about the environment? You might happily donate money to the World Wildlife Fund to help them fight deforestation in tropical rain forests. You don’t expect any return other than the knowledge that you helped a little bit. But you know that if enough people do the same, it will have a meaningful impact.

But what about spending a little more for sustainably harvested lumber? It won’t have any direct impact on your daily life. But as more people make that choice, it grows the market for sustainable lumber, which drives down the price. As the price goes down, illegal harvesting in rain forests, as well as other unsustainable forestry practices here and abroad, become less profitable, and a vital resource is preserved.

Weather any particular choice makes your home healthier to live in, or adds to your enjoyment of the house or your sense of pride in being a good citizen of Planet Earth, it is clear that not every decision you make is based on its value as an investment.

Still, in many ways, green remodeling is a sound financial investment. Investing in energy efficiency might cost a bit more up front, but you come out way ahead because the savings on your utility bills will be greater than the small increase in your mortgage payment. It is an investment that pays for itself – and then continues paying dividends as long as you own your home – and when you go to sell it. A growing body of evidence suggests that buyers are willing to pay more for energy-efficient green homes, and that such homes sell faster than nongreen homes.

As more people become aware of the benefits of living in healthy, energy-efficient homes, and as the cost of energy rises, it is very likely that those homes will sell at a significant premium, while energy hogs with poor indoor air quality will lose value.

 

 

Energy Independence: 800+ Towns in Italy Use 100% Clean, Renewable Energy - And at a Profit

Very interesting article in the NY Times this morning about a small town in Italy that now gets all of its electricity from renewable sources. And they're making money on it - enough to renovate the local school and fix the roads. 

And they're not alone. According to the article, "More than 800 Italian communities now make more energy than they use because of the recent addition of renewable energy plants. . ."

Does anyone know how many US towns can make that claim? I don't, but I bet the answer is nowhere near 800. My guess would be closer to eight, though I'd love to be proven wrong. 

Now, quick, choose one: a) Clean, green electricity from wind, solar, and other renewable resources, or b) exploding oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

Tough choice, right? That $20 billion from BP would sure buy a lot of wind turbines and solar panels. Think about it.

Shedding light: New line of LEDs coming to Home Depot

As I have stated elsewhere, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs for short), those spiral tubes that have become familiar, energy efficient substitutes for standard incandescent bulbs, represent a valuable, but transitory, step on the road to a cleaner, greener future.

CFLs will be around for years to come and, for many, offer substantial energy cost savings with quick payback periods. I still recommend them. But with a word of caution. CFLs contain small amounts of mercury, which means they must be recycled properly at the end of their useful life. But I have a hard time imagining that the majority of CFLs will actually find their way to appropriate recycling facilities, and worry that when large numbers of them start turning up in landfills mercury seeping into the ground will cause a major environmental headache.

The good news is that there is something better on the horizon. And that horizon is getting closer. Light emitting diodes, LEDs for short, are being used to produce a wide variety of lighting devices that many believe will come to dominate the lighting industry.

LEDs are more energy efficient that CFLs, contain no mercury, and last five times longer. They are also significantly more expensive. But even at current prices they offer a reasonable return on investment when you consider the energy cost savings and add up the number of standard replacement bulbs you would have had to buy over the course of an LED's 25,000 hour life span. (A typical incandescent bulb lasts about 1,000 hours; CFLs last 3 - 5,000 hours.)

Later this month, Home Depot will start selling the EcoSmart line of LED bulbs made by Lighting Science Group Corporation. The line includes devices designed to replace standard incandescent bulbs, as well as reflector floods - the type of bulb generally used in recessed lighting, and MR-16s - the tiny halogen bulbs used in many low-voltage lighting fixtures.

LEDs are an investment. If you are renting, or plan to move within two or three years, you are probably better off going with CFLs, which will pay for themselves in a matter of months. But if you plan to stay put for a while, LEDs have many advantages that may make the up front investment a wise choice.

Build a Green Economy for Earth Day

I've been thinking about how to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day tomorrow. After considering a dozen topics I concluded that I could do no better than to direct your attention to a recent  NY Times column by Paul Krugman, called Building a Green Economy. If you do nothing else to observe Earth Day, please read Krugman's article.

Addressing the arguments of scientists and skeptics, alike, Krugman's piece offers the clearest and most comprehensive explanation of the causes and effects of climate change, possible remedies, likely costs of mitigation - as well as likely costs of inaction, and rationale for action that I have read in a long time.

After citing the most current scientific evidence, Krugman writes

"models based on [this] research indicate that if we continue adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as we have, we will eventually face drastic changes in the climate. Let’s be clear. We’re not talking about a few more hot days in the summer and a bit less snow in the winter; we’re talking about massively disruptive events, like the transformation of the Southwestern United States into a permanent dust bowl over the next few decades.

UNCERTAINTY MAKES THE MOST URGENT CASE FOR STRONG ACTION

Despite the high credibility of climate modelers, he concedes that there is still tremendous uncertainty in their long-term forecasts, which leads to his most original conclusion - that it is this very uncertainty that makes the most urgent case for strong action. 

"You might think that this uncertainty weakens the case for action," he continues,but it actually strengthens it." Even if utter catastrophe is not the most likely outcome, the fact that there is a significant chance of catastrophe, which the science supports, acting on that chance — rather than what is most likely to happen — should dominate cost-benefit calculations. 

Quoting Harvard professor, Martin Weitzman, Krugman emphasizes that it is

". . . this risk of catastrophe, rather than the details of cost-benefit calculations, [that] makes the most powerful case for strong climate policy. Current projections of global warming in the absence of action are just too close to the kinds of numbers associated with doomsday scenarios. It would be irresponsible — it’s tempting to say criminally irresponsible — not to step back from what could all too easily turn out to be the edge of a cliff.

During a heavy snow storm this winter, I blogged about how happy such weather must make climate change skeptics, who would have us believe that the continued existence of winter disputes the evidence that the planet is warming. Krugman also notes that "a snowy winter on the East Coast of the U.S. has given climate skeptics a field day, even though globally this has been one of the warmest winters on record."

But one heavy snowstorm isn't going to make this issue go away. There is a good chance, Krugman says, that record temperatures around the world this year will deprive climate skeptics of one of their main talking points, and that, "given the twists and turns of American politics in recent years — since 2005 the conventional wisdom has gone from permanent Republican domination to permanent Democratic domination to God knows what — there has to be a real chance that political support for action on climate change will revive.

"We know how to limit greenhouse-gas emissions," he concludes. "We have a good sense of the costs — and they’re manageable. All we need now is the political will."

Earth Day is a good time to muster that political will.

Don't drill, baby, don't drill. Tell Obama we want clean energy, not more drilling.

In a 2008 debate, President Obama refuted John McCain's call for more offshore drilling (drill, baby, drill) as a solution to our energy problems. "We can't simply drill our way out of the problem," Obama said. "And we're not going to be able to deal with the climate crisis if our only solution is to use more fossil fuels that create global warming." (see video clip, below)

Yet this week, President Obama announced that he plans to open vast coastal areas to offshore oil drilling. This was a great disappointment to me and to millions of concerned Americans. Drilling won't create nearly as many jobs as clean energy, it won't make us energy independent, it won't help solve the climate crisis, and it won't help the economy.

A major commitment to clean energy will be the engine that revitalizes the American economy. Congress needs to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that puts a price on carbon and provides incentives for renewable energy sources. This will launch whole new industries, create millions of jobs, and cut our dependence on (and support of) countries that wish us ill.

The president knows this. But perhaps he needs to be reminded that we know it, too.

Please make your voice heard. At the Repower America web site you can add your name to a petition that says,

Dear President Obama:

“It’s time to end the dirty energy policies of the past, wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. It’s time for you to show real leadership, stand up to big oil, and stand with the American people in saying: CLEAN ENERGY, NOT OFFSHORE DRILLING!”

It will take you about 30 seconds. Please do it today.

Tell Congress to take action on climate change NOW

Now that Congress has completed the health care bill there is a unique, but limited, window of opportunity to achieve meaningful action on climate change.

Below is a short video of Dave Boundy, campaign manager for Repower America, explaining the organization's campaign strategy, and how you can help.

Through the generosity of an anonymous donor, any contribution you make to The Climate Protection Action Fund by midnight, March 31 (TOMORROW) will be matched dollar for dollar. Even if you can only afford a small donation, this matching grant will double it, making your gift twice as effective.

The Climate Protection Action Fund supports the vision that by repowering our planet with clean, renewable energy sources we can create millions of new jobs, hasten a global economic recovery, strengthen world security, and preserve our planet for future generations.

Saving Polar Bears in the Bedroom: Free Endangered Species Condoms

You can't make this stuff up.

On Valentines Day the Center for Biological Diversity began distributing 100,000 free condoms in all 50 states using a volunteer army of some 3,000 dedicated souls. Their effort, called Endangered Species Condoms, is designed to educate people about the ways unsustainable human population growth is driving many species to extinction at a cataclysmic rate.

The condoms come in a variety of colorful wrappers featuring pictures of endangered critters, with slogans like, "Wrap with care . . . save the polar bear," and "Hump smarter . . . save the snail darter." Honest to god, I swear I'm not making this up.

According to the organization, their volunteers range from "ministers to grandmothers to healthcare providers to college students and biologists." Each package contains two condoms packaged with original artwork, facts about overpopulation and the extinction crisis, and suggestions on how the human population can be stabilized.

More power to them, I say. Visitors to the program's web site can enter a drawing to win a lifetime supply of free condoms. I wonder how they determine exactly how many you'll need.

'How Bad For The Environment Can Throwing Away One Plastic Bottle Be?' 30 Million People Wonder

First of all, dear readers, I must apologize for the long silence. I needed to put the blog on hold while finishing up the manuscript for my book, Practical Green Remodeling, due out this summer. It's nearly done (my editor will be relieved to hear) and I hope to resume regular blogging shortly. But I couldn't resist sharing this piece from The Onion that my son alerted me to.

  A local resident discards a plastic bottle—just as he has done his whole life—with no perceivable effect on the environment.

WASHINGTON—Wishing to dispose of the empty plastic container, and failing to spot a recycling bin nearby, an estimated 30 million Americans asked themselves Monday how bad throwing away a single bottle of water could really be.

"It's fine, it's fine," thought Maine native Sheila Hodge, echoing the exact sentiments of Chicago-area resident Phillip Ragowski, recent Florida transplant Margaret Lowery, and Kansas City business owner Brian McMillan, as they tossed the polyethylene terephthalate object into an awaiting trash can. "It's just one bottle. And I'm usually pretty good about this sort of thing."

"Not a big deal," continued roughly one-tenth of the nation's population.

According to the inner monologue of millions upon millions of citizens, while not necessarily ideal, throwing away one empty bottle probably wouldn't make that much of a difference, and could even be forgiven, considering how long they had been carrying it around with them, the time that could be saved by just tossing it out right here, and the fact that they had bicycled to work once last July.

In addition, pretty much the entire states of Missouri and New Mexico calmly reassured themselves Monday that they definitely knew better than to do something like this, but admitted that hey, nobody is perfect, and at least they weren't still using those horrible aerosol cans, or just throwing garbage directly on the ground.

All agreed that disposing of what would eventually amount to 50 tons of thermoplastic polymer resin wasn't the end of the world.

"It's not like I don't care, because I do, and most of the time I don't even buy bottled water," thought Missouri school teacher Heather Delamere, the 450,000th caring and progressive individual to have done so that morning, and the 850,000th to have purchased the environmentally damaging vessel due to being thirsty, in a huge rush, and away from home. "It's really not worth beating myself up over."

"What's one little bottle in the grand scheme of things, you know?" added each and every single one of them.

Monday's plastic-bottle-related dilemma wasn't the only environmental quandary facing millions of citizens across the country. An estimated 20 million men and women wondered how wasteful leaving a single lightbulb on all night really was, while more than 40 million Americans asked themselves if anyone would actually notice if they just turned up the heat a few degrees instead of walking all the way downstairs and getting another blanket.

Likewise, had they not been so tired, and busy, and stressed, citizens making up the equivalent of three major metropolitan areas told reporters that they probably wouldn't have driven their minivans down to the corner store.

"Relax," thousands upon thousands of Americans quietly whispered to themselves as they tossed two articles of clothing into an empty washing machine and turned it on. "What are you so worried about?"

You can see the original here.

A Wonkish Post About the Waxman-Markey Bill, a.k.a. the American Clean Energy and Security Act

Just back from Atlanta, where I spent four days at the Renewable Energy Markets conference sponsored by CRS, the Center for Resource Solutions.

One of the most striking things about the conference was the acknowledgement by virtually every speaker that a great deal of the clean energy landscape is about to change. Congress is on the verge of passing (we hope) some version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA), also known as the Waxman-Markey bill. (The Senate version of the bill is called the Bingaman bill, but don’t let that confuse you).

Though far from perfect, ACESA is a significant step forward in the effort to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels and to curb global warming. The bill will mandate that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by 80% (from 2005 levels) by the year 2050. That’s ambitious goal to be accomplished in 40 years, but it’s far from impossible. Still, many would argue that it is not ambitious enough.

One of the most crucial features of this 1,200 page bill is a cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is the same model that has been highly successful in reducing acid rain, so we know the mechanism to be effective. Simply put, energy producers would first be required to limit their greenhouse gas emissions to 2005 levels, and then gradually reduce emissions each year as the cap is ratcheted down.

Opponents of cap-and-trade claim that the costs will be prohibitive. But experience has shown that the successful acid rain reduction program in the US has been far less costly than originally predicted. And the European Union currently operates under a cap-and-trade system with virtually no negative economic consequences, according to an analysis by MIT.

More importantly, what opponents fail to consider, and should be reminded of at every opportunity, is that the cost of inaction will dwarf the cost of addressing climate change. I am always amazed when professed fiscal conservatives ignore financial consequences that will occur after the next election cycle, let alone in their children’s lifetime. This is conservatism? I call it irresponsible. But I digress.

But back to ACESA. One of the bill’s flaws, which could be easily fixed, is that neither the House or Senate versions contain a provision for protecting the voluntary market for renewable energy credits (RECs). (Click here for more detail on renewable energy credits).

While utilities in 30 states must buy RECs to comply with state mandates for clean energy, called Renewable Portfolio Standards, many organizations voluntarily buy RECs as part of a corporate commitment to environmental responsibility. Some of the largest voluntary buyers of RECs include Intel, PepsiCo, DuPont, Staples, Alcoa, Cargill Dow, Delphi Corporation, and scores of others who have offset from 4% to 100% of their conventional electricity usage. To date, voluntary REC purchases have been responsible for over 50% of all new renewable energy development in the US. Voluntary purchases in 2007, alone, account for 18.1 Megawatt hours of clean energy capacity. It’s a big success story.

A simple change in the bill’s language could rectify this shortcoming. It would take someone far more wonkish than I to explain this adequately, but passing this bill is a crucial step towards tackling climate change. I urge you to write, call, or email your Senators and Representatives to say you support passage of ACESA, and that it should be amended to provide added protections for the voluntary REC market.

New Film, The Age of Stupid, asks Why didn't we stop climate change while we had the chance?

The Age of  Stupid, a powerful new British drama/documentary film about climate change, is having its Unites States premier on September 21 and 22 in theaters in every state. (You can find a list of theaters and show times, and order tickets here.) The film stars Oscar-nominated actor, Pete Postlethwaite, as an old man living in the devastated world of 2055, watching 'archive' footage from 2008 and asking: why didn't we stop climate change while we had the chance?

Within 48 hours of the film's British launch at Tate Modern on September 1, 10,000 people, including Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, all of the cabinet, and the leaders of the UK's three main political parties all signed a pledge to  cut the UK's emissions by 10% in 2010.

Franny Armstrong, director of The Age of Stupid and founder of the environmental organization 10:10 said: "It's amazing that within 48 hours of the campaign's launch, the leaderships of the three main political parties have committed to cut their carbon emmissions by 10%. Who said people power was dead?

The premiere will be simulcast live from a solar powered tent in New York City to over 400 movie theaters at 7:30 PM ET (6:30 PM CT/ 5:30 PM MT/ tape delayed 8PM PT) and will include a live pre-show from the green carpet including Kofi Annan, Gillian Anderson, the film's director Franny Armstrong, and star, Pete Postlethwaite, and other luminaries from around the world including Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, and Ed Miliband, the UK Minister of Energy and Climate Change.

Mark your calendars and order your tickets now, and let me know what you thought of the film.

Urine Powered Cars; Gas Tanks Made From Chicken Feathers. Is This The Solution to Fuel Efficiency?

I couldn't resist this. A blog post on the GenGreen Life web site this week reveals two innovations in hydrogen-powered car research.

One of the problems, it seems, with hydrogen fuel cell cars is that the fuel tank needs to be extremely strong in order to store enough compressed hydrogen for a decent driving range. A tank made of carbon nanotubes would do the trick but would add about $30 thousand to the price of the car. But researchers at the University of Delaware accidentally discovered that inexpensive hydrogen tanks of great strength could be made using keratin fibers found in chicken feathers, a plentiful and renewable resource.

The other discovery noted in the article was that hydrogen can be derived very efficiently from urine. I know, I know. But think of it - you're on the road and running low on fuel and you need to find a bathroom and there's no gas station for miles. Voila! Talk about killing two birds with one stone. 

You can read the entire blog post here.

Water crisis? What water crisis?

The other day I mentioned to my mother that I've been studying the global water crisis. She replied, "There's a global water crisis?"

Now, my mother reads a newspaper every day, the Baltimore Sun. She listens to NPR. Most mornings she watches the Today Show, and every evening she watches at least one TV news program. Every Sunday at 9:00 AM she watches CBS Sunday Morning with Charles Osgood, followed by 60 Minutes in the evening.

And she doesn't know that there is a global water crisis.

It seems clear that the media is doing a singularly bad job of getting this story out. Yet 12 million people die each year due to lack of access to clean water. A child dies every six seconds for lack of access to clean water. The WorldWatch Institute has called water scarcity "the most underappreciated global environmental challenge of our time." No kidding.

Pollution, climate change, and population growth all contribute to a problem that, if left unchecked, will result in water scarcity for two thirds of the world's population by 2025. By 2030, according to the UN, more than half the population of large Third World cities will have no access at all to water or sanitation services.

But this is not just a Third World problem. Huge swaths of the United States are currently facing severe water shortages. Maude Barlow writes in Blue Covenant that in 2007, " Lake Superior, the world's largest freshwater lake, dropped to its lowest level in eighty years. . . . California has a twenty-year supply of freshwater left. New Mexico has only a ten-year supply. Arizona is out: it now import all of its drinking water."

Barlow also notes that the U.S. Geological Survey found that "the parched Interior West is probably the driest it has been in five hundred years." This is more than a drought. We are running out of water.

The water crisis is complex and of vast proportion. I'll be writing more about it in the coming weeks, both about the effects that are being felt around the world, and what we can do about it. In the meanwhile, Google "global water crisis" and check out one or two of the 44 million hits you'll find there. And, for heaven's sake, stop letting the water run while you brush your teeth.

TELL THE SENATE TO FIX CLIMATE BILL LOOPHOLES

I just did something to help secure a clean energy future for the United States. It took exactly 30 seconds. Maybe 25 seconds. You can, too.

All you have to do is visit the EarthJustice web site where a simple, easy-to-use form will enable you to send a letter (already written for you - how thoughtful is that!) to your senators asking them to support the climate bill passed by the House recently.

THIS IS IMPORTANT.

It is also important to ask the Senate to fix a couple of shortcomings in the House version in the bill.

A recent editorial in the New York Times (see below) explained what the Senate must do to strengthen the bill.

Why is it so important to write to your senators? EarthJustice explains:

Your senator is hearing daily from opposing voices, among them far-right bloggers and talk radio hosts, who do not believe global warming is real and want to keep our nation hooked on dirty fossil fuels. It is time for us to demand that the Senate act swiftly to combat global warming and usher in an era of clean renewable energy. The world cannot wait. The Senate must craft a bill that sets science-based caps on carbon emissions.

Please visit EarthJustice today and send a letter to your senators. It only takes 30 seconds. While you're at it, why not ask ten friends to do the same.

NY TIMES EDITORIAL, "CLIMATE LOOPHOLES"

Published July 21, 2009

The House’s approval of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill earlier this month was a remarkable political achievement and an important beginning to the task of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But in all the last-minute wheeling and dealing, the House bill acquired two big loopholes that the Senate must close.

The first loophole involves coal-fired power plants. Coal is the world’s most abundant fossil fuel — producing more than half the electricity in the United States — and also its dirtiest, with twice the carbon content of natural gas.

The House bill would limit emissions from coal-fired power plants in two ways. It imposes a cap on emissions from all industrial facilities that tightens slowly over time. It also sets tough performance standards on new power plants permitted after 2009, requiring emissions reductions of 50 percent or more. The bill would help underwrite advanced technologies capable of capturing carbon dioxide and storing it underground.

The bill does not, however, impose any performance standards on existing power plants. And it explicitly removes these plants from the reach of the Clean Air Act. This is a mistake. The overall cap on industrial emissions will not be fully effective for a long time, and, meanwhile, the government should be able to impose lower-emissions requirements on the older, dirtiest plants.

There is little doubt that the Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to require existing plants to reduce emissions by, say, using cleaner fuels or increasing efficiency. But the House bill says otherwise, at least when it comes to carbon dioxide. The Senate must fix this problem by writing standards for existing plants into its bill or restoring the E.P.A.’s authority to do so. The old plants simply cannot be let off the hook.

The second loophole involves the tricky matter of offsets.

Put a little green in Mother's Day

The approach of Mother's Day reminds me that I've been wanting to introduce my readers to the Good Guide. It's a web site that provides detailed, reliable information on the health, environmental and social impacts of thousands of consumer goods.

On their home page today they offer a large number of suggestions for green mother's day gifts. If you haven't already bought your mom something -- and if you haven't, what's taking you so long? don't you know Mother's Day is tomorrow? Do I have to remind you of everything? And would it kill you to pick up a phone? All my friends' kids call their mothers every day . . . -- oh, wait . . . I'm not your mother. But as I was saying, if you haven't already gotten something for Mom, check out Good Guide.

I first learned about Good Guide from the book, Ecological Intelligence by Daniel Goleman, which I recommended here a couple of weeks ago. Their team of scientists, researchers and academics has assembled detailed information on over 70,000 products and rates each one, providing a simple way to find out how the things you buy everyday measure up in three categories - environmental, health and social impacts.

They also have a cool iPhone app that puts all this information in your pocket while you shop. Here, in their own words, is how Good Guide was started, and what their mission is.

One summer a few years ago, Dara O’Rourke was doing what he’d done dozens of times before: putting sunscreen on his five-year old daughter Minju before she went outside to play in the summer sun. The thought occurred to Dara, "I wonder what’s really in this stuff?" So, being a Professor at the University of California-Berkeley, Dara researched the sunscreen. What he found was surprising and disturbing: the sunscreen he’d been putting on Minju for years had a toxic ingredient.

At that moment, Dara realized how little we know about the products we bring into our homes every day. He knew that other parents should have the same access to product information that he and his fellow researchers had. He also wanted to solve the problem of increasingly confusing marketing claims regarding whether products were actually healthy, safe or green.

So he brought together both academic and technology experts to create a world-class team of scientists, consumer researchers, technologists and industry professionals. From Google, Amazon, eBay, PayPal, and Intuit, to MIT and the University of California, we’ve developed a "For Benefit" startup at the forefront of integrating science and technology, working to fill a huge information gap in the marketplace.

Our team is dedicated to combining the best science and technology available, with what’s most important to you. Our goal is to provide the most comprehensive, credible, and useful information in the world, on products and companies delivered whenever and wherever you need it. We’re making information available and easy to use so each of us can express our own values and concerns in the marketplace.

Consilience: The Blog and the Institute of Green Professionals

I would like to direct your attention to the newest addition to our list of blogs worth reading, Consilience: The Blog, published by the Institute of Green Professionals, who have kindly elected me to join the ranks of their members.

The IGP, in the words of its mission statement, ". . . is a transdisciplinary network of sustainable development professionals, academics and organizations that advance global sustainable development through education, credentialing, research, philanthropy and a Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct."

I feel privileged to be associated with this group of sustainability professionals and academics. Please visit their web site and check out Consillience: The Blog from time to time. You may even find the occasional post there by . . . well, modesty forbids.