Green Blog

This past Friday my friend and I reverted back to the old days, turning off all our lights and electronics to sit in candlelight for an hour, chatting about life. It wasn’t because we were nostalgic for those old days, though. We participated in Earth Hour, an event where people all over the world turned off their lights for an hour at 8 pm local time. The event is also a way to kick off National Dark Sky Week, a way to recognize the growing danger of light pollution to our earth’s skies and the species that inhabit the planet.

According the wikipedia, the first Earth Hour was held in Sydney, and the event is sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund Australia (it really doesn’t surprise me that the first one took place in Australia).

“The 2007 Earth Hour is estimated to have cut Sydney’s mains electricity consumption by between 2.1% and 10.2% for that hour, with as many as 2.2 million people taking part.”

That’s pretty damn good, I think. And this year Earth Hour really went global, so it’ll be interesting to see statistics on the electricity we saved globally on Friday. However, I know for a fact that my friend and I were the only ones on my floor who participated. The Facebook event, though, became quite large before the day of the event, but I do wonder how many college students sat in the dark for an hour like we did.

But Earth Hour this year was big enough to receive backing from Google, and the Web site had a black background for the entire day.

Apparently some criticism for the event runs along the lines that it really doesn’t do anything, that it’s more symbolic than anything. However, to me at least, if something’s symbolic, at least it’s a start. Turning the lights out hopefully caused many people to seriously consider their daily electricity use – use that could be decreased by simply turning off a computer every now and then or unplugging a vampire appliance, like a microwave that continually shows the time on its screen.

The Vatican just updated its list of deadly sins with seven news ones, with three relating to the environment:

(paraphrased from bishop Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Vatican body that deals with confessions and indulgences)
Thou shalt not ruin the environment
Thou shalt not carry out morally debatable scientific experiments
Thou shalt not allow genetic manipulations

Say what??!! What happened to thou shalt not kill? Some are calling it the “pollute and you go to hell” campaign. I don’t know about that, and I’m not sure how they’re defining the word “pollute,” but at the very least, it seems that religions are taking steps to make the world more green. I don’t know if this is the best way to go about it - making a list of things not to do rather than taking positive steps and getting things done - but it’s definitely a start. Though much of the jargon is “pompous, official” jargon (at least that’s how it seems to me), so it’ll be interesting to see how the Church defines each word in the new statement.

So, I guess, kudos to the Vatican. But this maybe needs a bit more work before polluting becomes on par with murder.

Steel, a traditionally wasteful industry, is looking into news ways to become environmentally friendly.

In Britain, scientists are experimenting with painting solar cells right into the outsides of buildings. The paint would go onto the steel used as construction material. Because the cells are good at capturing radiation from low light, they work in the British climate, which often leads to those foggy, ugly days. The potential for buildings is immense. Steel is widely used in the skyscrapers we see in the biggest cities in the world, and if the construction material itself can provide energy, just think of what could be saved.

The global steel industry is also helping to collect information on global warming. Steel plants around the world are collecting data on the amount of emissions from their plants, compiling them with the goal of reducing energy consumption. The industry, though, only really accounts for 3-4 percent of world greenhouse emissions (according to Reuters), so it’s obviously not the whole answer to global warming. But it’s a start. It’s still unsure whether China will participate - a world leader in emissions.

However, solutions will need to go beyond just collecting data. The American Iron and Steel Institute is looking into different methods of making steel by making iron (a significant component) carbon-free.

It’s been awhile since I updated. It’s not that the environment has been far from my mind; it’s that I had about five stories with deadlines in the past two weeks, along with editing duties and classwork and Japanese exams. Life should be getting a lot easier now that this batch of stories is done, so hopefully I will have more time to update.

I’d like to take this blog in a slightly new direction. A lot of my entries have been opinion-based, and I am going to make an effort to step away from that a little and more try to bring new issues and events to light, assessing things with a more objective eye.

To start with, I decided to take a look at a few of the “green” Facebook applications out there and which ones are worth putting on your profile (I am just about anti-applications except for the green ones).

I Am Green
This application lets you tell others what things you do to be green. There’s a list of things to check off, and you can also add your own. Some of mine include:
# I do not own a car
# I do not use any chemicals in my yard
# I use recycled ink cartridges
# I use mostly recycled paper products
# I don’t litter
# I read/learn a lot about environmental issues
# I own some second-hand / re-use clothing
# Most of my batteries are rechargable
# I ride/walk more than drive

You are rated by the number of leaves you get, and can hook up with friends who also have leaves. I currently have 21 leaves listed. It’s basically a way to record the little things you do to help the environment.

Causes: Green
This application is one of the causes that you can support on Facebook. Its mission, as posted on the homepage, is
1. REDUCE consumption of raw materials
2. REUSE as a seed-starter greenhouse
3. RECYCLE and save energy

The cause is a place to discuss environmental issues, and by having it on your profile, it will probably inspire a few others to click on it and check it out. There’s also a place to donate, with money going toward Environmental Defense. According to the homepage, the cause has 191,031 members.

Greenhouse
It appears that this application allows you to “plant” and nurture a plant on your profile page. It doesn’t appear to have any real benefit other than to play gardener.

Wow, when I started writing this entry, I assumed there would be a lot more green applications. But I can’t seem to find anymore through looking at friends’ profiles. If you come across anymore, let me know!

This past week we all received recycling bags in our dorm mailboxes. It’s apparently part of a new recycling initiative. The bags, which are mesh, are meant to collect stuff in the actual dorm rooms to be desposited in recycling bins in the dorm lobbies.

That’s all well and good, but all of the bags contained a piece of tissue paper for no apparent reason. The bags are MESH, they’re not fragile, they don’t need to be packaged with tissue paper! I find it ironic that these new recycling bags contain their first deposits already. This makes me wonder just exactly who designed this new initiative and whose idea it was to get bags that had pointless paper in them, which just belittles the whole project, in my mind.

When I look for story ideas, I tend to go to these Web sites. I thought I would list them here if anyone is at all interested in the environment. They are great sources not only for ideas, but just for learning more about the issues.

Environmental News Network
This Web site is my favorite. I like how it’s divided up into the different main environmental aspects, from climate to agriculture to green lifestyles. It’s a compilation of stories from different green Web news sites and newspapers, and I get most of my ideas from here.

Environmental News Service
I find that this Web site mostly covers the major international environmental news stories and sometimes misses a lot of the little stuff, but it’s still a good source for information.

EcoGeek
I just discovered this one today, and I haven’t had the chance to really go through it, but I like the premise of fusing technology and nature, which is the basis for the Web site.

Michigan Environmental Portal
This Web site is great resource for all Michigan environmental issues. Not only does it give articles, but it allows you to see what kinds of environmental research is going on at Michigan State and includes a list of resources. It’s pretty much an MSU environmental journalist’s best friend.

The Knight Center for Environmental Journalism
MSU has a top-notch environmental journalism program, and its Web site gives the latest environmental news sorted by region in Michigan. Again, a great resource for MSU journalists.

Flourescent pigs??

I understand experimenting with genes to find solutions to problems or diseases. And I understand experimenting for the sake of experimenting. But flourescent pigs? That seems a bit much. Pretty damn sweet, but a little much. I don’t understand the purpose behind it just for the sake of showing that you can. How is being flourescent going to help the pigs? And how would the technology help humans?

Sometimes I wonder how far we’re going to take genetic engineering. Last semester I wrote a story for EJ Magazine on genetically engineered food. Since I couldn’t put my opinion in it then, I’ll put it in here, since this is a blog. For the most part I’m against genetically engineered food. It’s one thing to use it to attempt to alleviate world hunger, but at the same time, hardly any of that food is going where it could be needed the most. It also doesn’t get to the root of poverty problems - it’s only a way to fix the symptoms, not the cause. But what’s even worse I think is to use genetically engineered food just on an everyday basis. Humans survived for thousands of years without genetically modifying their food - why is there such a rush to do it now?

And you can’t tell me that Monsanto, originally a chemical company, has only the science in mind. People look to make a profit at whatever they do, and that goes for big chemical companies. How do we know the long term effects? And there was the issue a few years ago, where genetically modified corn not approved for human consumption got mixed into regular corn. I guess my point that I’m trying to make is that we are a little too careless about genetically engineered food - I understand how it can be useful, but sometimes I feel like it’s going a little too far, making food that humans weren’t meant to consume in the first place.

There’s my rant on genetically engineered food. I guess I veered off topic, but I think the issue is an important one.

The other day when I was walking in downtown Chicago I was accosted by a fellow from Greenpeace. He had on a snazzy green jacket and was about my age - a senior at the University of Illinois - and being of the environmental mind, I decided to stop and listen to his spiel, thinking it was about a petition or something.

He told my friend and I about illegal whaling, especially in Japan, and that Greenpeace is doing a lot to stop that from happening (though I can’t remember him saying anything specific about what the organization did). He also talked about cutting down trees for Kleenex. Though I sympathized with what he had to say and would have gladly signed up for a monthly newsletter, I was kind of put out by the fact that to get said monthly newsletter, I would have to also make a monthly donation. After repeated attempts of trying to tell the guy that I’m in fact broke and can’t afford that right now, my friend and I were finally able to escape his equally repeated attempts at convincing me it’s only $15 a month, so how could I afford not to? I told him I would go on the Web site, and he then started almost lecturing us on how it’s rare than anyone goes on the Web site when they say they’re going to and that the way to make a difference is on the street, not on the Internet.

I understand that environmental organizations need funding, but I felt so pressured by this guy to donate money that it just completely threw me for a loop that he was so insistent. I almost felt as if he was condescending toward that fact that I am indeed broke, as I if I were less of an environmentalist than I claimed I was. The fact that this made me, an self-proclaimed environmentalist, shrink from “doing my part” to save the environment makes me wonder how “regular” people view Greenpeace. It’s always seemed to me as if the organization was slightly violent and too big to really make a difference at a truly grassroots level.

Should environmental groups insist on money in exchange for membership? Seems to me like people would do more if they weren’t pressured into it and came into environmentalism on their own, donating money because they truly believed in the cause.

This is to prove to the guy that I actually did go to the Web site.

I read an article that named “organic” as one of the most overused words this past year. (I forgot to bookmark the link, though, so unfortunately I can’t bring it up again) I actually have to agree. I saw that word tossed around so many times this past year - it was almost as if by using the word one automatically became more knowledgeable about the environment. So I decided to put it into thesaurus.com to see what other words we could use in place of that one in 2008.

Here’s what came up:
amoebic, anatomical, animate, basal, biological, biotic, cellular, constitutional, elemental, essential, fundamental, inherent, innate, integral, live, living, natural, necessary, nuclear, original, plasmic, primary, prime, primitive, principal, structural, vital

chemical-free farming, natural farming

actual, animal, carnal, corporal, corporeal, fleshly, gross, human, hylic, material, natural, normal, organic, physical, sensual, somatic, substantial, tangible, unspiritual

fiber, lite food, low-calorie food, low-fat food, natural food, nonfat food, organic food, roughage

I’ll stop here because they don’t get any better. So then I put the word into dictionary.com.

1. noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.
2. characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms: organic remains found in rocks.
3. of or pertaining to an organ or the organs of an animal, plant, or fungus.
4. of, pertaining to, or affecting living tissue: organic pathology.
5. Psychology. caused by neurochemical, neuroendocrinologic, structural, or other physical impairment or change: organic disorder.Compare functional (def. 5).
6. Philosophy. having an organization similar in its complexity to that of living things.
7. characterized by the systematic arrangement of parts; organized; systematic: elements fitting together into a unified, organic whole.

Again, they don’t get much better.

I guess we’re stuck with organic. But I hope to see it used just a little more sparingly. Wouldn’t it be funny if we killed this new environmental movement because we bored people to death with our word choices?

In my perusal of the Internet, I came across this the other day and thought I would share it. After all, a hot guy in front of a beautiful natural background - who wouldn’t want to see this?

Leo’s actually done a lot for the environment (or, rather, more than most). His official web site actually features his environmental activism rather than a just a bunch of half-naked pictures of him. It also has links to different environmental charities and a link to the official web site of The 11th Hour, his new documentary on the environment. I’m looking forward to seeing the documentary, which promises to look at the world’s pressing environmental problems and offer up solutions, all while being narrated by the wonderful Leo Dicaprio.

There are some celebrities who take up causes so easily and quickly that I have to wonder whether they really care or if they’re just trying to boost their image in the public’s eye. Like Madonna. But then there are others who advocate so completely, making documentaries and actually DOING things to help, like Leo. I really admire him and am so happy that there are people who use their fame to actually make a difference in the world.

I encourage you to check out both his web site and The 11th Hour.