Is your Mac a friend or foe of the environment?

Would you have bought your precious iBook if you knew Apple was one of the worst performers when it came to addressing and reversing climate change?

According to Climate Counts, a climate conscious consumer organization, when it comes to action on climate change, Apple ranks the lowest among 12 leading producers of electronics. IBM and Toshiba actually take the top spots.

Climate Counts is a collaborative effort to bring consumers and companies together in the fight against global climate change. Each year, Climate Counts “scores” companies based on their measured climate footprint, their impact on global warming, their support (or lack) for progressive climate legislation, and their publicly disclosed actions.

Spend a little time on their website and you’ll be surprised (as I was) by the companies that are truly making strides against climate change. For instance – Nike has one of the highest scores of the almost 100 companies scored by Climate Counts.

Ideally, people would use a company’s score to influence where they spend their consumer dollars. As an environmentally conscious consumer, my McDonald’s hamburger tastes a little better because I know McDonald’s is striving higher than Wendy’s when it comes to climate change.

I am happy to report (as are other Mac users) that Apple's score increased from a 2/100 to a 11/100 from 2007 to 2008. While, a score of 11 still pales in comparison to IBM's 77, a quick visit to Apple's website verifies Apple should see a significant increase in their score in 2009. In the past year, Apple has taken significant strides to improve their climate consciousness.

Power to make significant progress in the climate battle exists in our wallets, purses, and piggy banks. If we seek to support companies who support the environment, we can raise awareness, change behavior and move markets to promote sound solutions to the climate crisis.

East and West working together to understand the mind

One of the more intriguing collaborations that I have found is between neuroscientists and monks. I first heard about this partnership when reading The Art of Happiness by the Dalia Lama. The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddism and one could argue for all Budhhists in the world, has chosen to embrace the science community. He became one of the cofounders of the Mind and Life Institute in 1987, along with a neuroscientist and entrepreneur. The organization's purpose is to promote dialogue and collaborative research between science and Buddhism.

The Dalai Lama has actively encouraged monks and scientists to work together to study meditation. Neuroscientists have been interested in understanding what happens to the brain during meditation and how the brains of monks, who meditate on average 10 hours a day, may differ from those of non-monks. Many studies have shown that training the mind through meditation can in fact change the brain (i.e. neuroplasticity). Click here and here for some articles that discuss some of these findings.

In his book, The Universe in a Single Atom, the Dalai Lama looks at how scientific inquiry and Buddhism both have the objective to understand the nature of reality through critical investigation. While there are some central disagreements such as science's rejection of reincarnation and the Dalai Lama's rejection that consciousness is a combination of chemical reactions, the Dalai Lama seems unthreatened. In fact, he even goes as far to say that if science disproves Buddhism, then Buddhists must accept the findings. Listen to or read this this NPR piece on about the controversy over Dalai Lama, a nonscientist, addressing neuroscientists about the neuroscience of meditation.

Do you think these two worldviews be combined/united? Ultimately, I think both models show a strong overlap but use a different language and framework to describe the world. In any case, it is nice for a change to see religion and science, two diametrically opposed fields, taking a moment to learn from one another.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle - Who Cares?

Let's be honest, sometimes there's nothing more annoying than carrying around a plastic food bin leaking spaghetti sauce inside your already stuffed backpack.

So, what's the harm in throwing it into your nearest trash can? Or just leaving it next to a bench in the park or on the ocean-side boardwalk? The problem is gone.

Or so it appears.

In the meantime, places around the world are becoming plastic garbage dumps. According to Charles Moore, an American oceanographer, there are about 100 million tons of plastic garbage circulating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch". The patch is filled with an assortment of durable plastic items such as water bottles, toys, and other debris.

Plastic debris items such as these might seem relatively harmless at first. However, the U.N. Environment Programme has stated that plastic debris in the world's oceans are responsible for the death of approximately 100,000 marine mammals and more than 1 million seabirds every year.

Charles Moore also warns that over the next 10 years, this toxic “plastic stew” will double in size unless consumers cut back on their use of disposable plastics.

So, the next time you're debating whether or not to throw out a plastic food container, please consider the following questions: Is this container recyclable? Can I rinse it out and and reuse it? Are there any other available options such as ceramic plates?

Overall, we can all take part in those three famous R's (reduce, reuse, recycle), because every little bit can add up to make a big difference.

Conversing with the Fringe

Have you read The Travels of a Tee Shirt in a Global Economy by Pietra Rivoli? Whether or not you have, you would’ve enjoyed a presentation given by Rivoli on February 24 at Fuqua School of Business. The author, a business professor at Georgetown University, spoke about free trade after following a tee-shirt from the cotton farms in Lubbock, TX, to Shanghai, China, to Washington, DC, to New York, NY, and finally to Tanzania.

While Rivoli doesn't believe free trade is necessarily a good thing, she points out that Americans have tended to view it favorably. In 2002, at the height of the globalization debate, 78% of Americans believed that international trade was very good or somewhat good for the country.

That statistic has dropped, however. More and more Americans believe that international trade is a “story of destruction”, creating systems that breed inequality and perpetuate hardship in developing countries. People struggling to survive will work for unfair wages or under harsh and unhealthy conditions just to get by.

Rivoli claims that the people who view trade unfavorably are both the “fringe” and now mainstream Americans who had previously turned a deaf ear to the problems of international trade. She argues that we should never dismiss “fringe” sentiments because they are one of the best “crystal balls”. They predict the world in 10 years and their ideas, seen as crazy today, will become standard practice. If you need convincing, look at the World Bank and IMF protestors who called attention to the pitfalls of globalization. Or look at the groups who pressured corporations like GAP and NIKE to change their supply chain management. “Fringe” demands are now the norm.

As an environmentalist who has felt like the “fringe” when arguing for the benefits of recycling or green building, I believe that the environmental message is a “crystal ball”. Environmentalists have recently made large strides in pushing some issues, like energy conservation and climate change, to the forefront of the public agenda.

But it seems that these accomplishments have only been possible in the past several years because conservationists have begun talking to diverse groups of people, namely the business community, which has historically rejected pairing economic growth with conservation.

So perhaps Rivoli’s belief in talking with a diverse set of people is actually a two-way street. It takes initiative from both groups, the business community and the “fringe” to tackle important issues. The environmental movement has certainly benefited from doing this.

The Price Appalachia Pays

“Out of sight, out of mind” is why most Americans do not know what mountaintop removal coal mining is or that it is one of our country’s greatest environmental and human rights tragedies.

In order to quickly and easily access the seems of coal in the Appalachian mountains, mining companies first strip away the forests and topsoil, then use explosives-up to 100 times as strong as those used in the Oklahoma City federal building bombing-to blast up to 1,000 feet off of the mountaintops and expose the coal. Anything that isn’t coal, or the “overburden,” is dumped into adjacent valleys, in some places up to a depth of 600 feet. To date, this process has flattened at least a million acres and buried over 1,200 miles of biologically crucial Appalachian springs and creeks.

The environmental and community impacts of mountaintop removal mining are devastating, affecting everything from coalfield employment and flash floods to chemical fumes and “flyrock.” How is this allowed to happen? It’s all about profits. Mountaintop mines recover almost 100% of the coal in the ground and require far fewer workers. Also at fault is a 2002 rule change orchestrated by the Bush Administration.

A court victory was won in 2007 when a federal judge ordered greater environmental review of permits for mountaintop removal in West Virginia. Unfortunately, that decision was just overturned on February 13th by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, and the mining companies are ready to go.

As big of a setback as this decision is, there is legislative progress occurring. On the federal level, The Clean Water Protection Act was introduced last year with 153 co-sponsors, and will likely be re-introduced in the 111th Congress. Here in North Carolina, the Appalachian Mountains Preservation Act was just introduced in the house and senate this week. The legislation would phase out state utility purchases of coal from mountaintop removal mines.

Chances are the power you use every day is connected to mountaintop removal mining. Want to be sure? Check out the cool widget on the homepage of iLoveMountains.org’s website. You just enter your zip code and you’ll find out if your utility company is part of the problem. If they are, visit their website and let them know how you feel about this destructive practice.

Why a ‘fart tax’ might be just a load of hot air

In recent months rumors have been circulating that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a ‘fart tax’ for livestock as part of their new plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions. A similar proposal has outraged farmers in both New Zealand and Australia.

Why do we care about such obscure taxes becoming a reality? Is it possible that these 'fart taxes' are just a load of hot air? (See this blog for more)

Many years ago, I was up late watching the news and saw a story about a herd of sheep fitted with contraptions consisting of plastic trousers on their behinds and tubes in their mouths, among other things. It was a hilarious sight and I couldn’t help but wonder why these sheep were hooked up to these pieces of equipment. Not being a complete novice to the science surrounding climate change, the explanation was in fact quite plausible. They were using these devices to measure their methane emissions.

According to this article from the BBC, farting and burping by these farm animals are responsible for:

• 90% of the methane emissions in New Zealand,
• 70% of the methane emissions in Australia, and
• 15% of methane emissions worldwide.

So, you might be wondering why the sudden shift to talking about methane?

• Methane has 21 times the heat-trapping potential of carbon dioxide (EPA).

Why is this important?

In agrarian countries like New Zealand, it is estimated that over half the country’s greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the methane emitted by farm animals. This means that something like a ‘fart tax’ on farm animals could, in theory, help NZ meet their Kyoto Protocol targets. But, this is just in theory…

In reality, a ‘fart tax’ would do very little to curb emissions. The actual result of such a tax would be a huge loss in revenue for farmers while the overall emissions in the atmosphere would not be reduced unless farmers cut back on the numbers of sheep, cows, and hogs. Ultimately, we would just see dairy and meat prices rise to meet growing costs. In the current economic climate, adding financial pressure to farmers, especially in NZ whose economy depends on agriculture, does not seem to be the answer to curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Luckily, the proposal was shot down in Australia, NZ, and the United States --- but not before widespread hysteria erupted among farmers.

Why do we regulate emissions using taxes and permits? To reduce emissions.

That being said, a ‘fart tax’ is not going to get the job done. The gas produced by these animals is a result of natural processes and is not going to be reduced by taxing farmers.

What is the solution then?

Methane gas emissions still need to be regulated and some scientists in Australia are now turning away from the old “plastic trousers” mechanism and are hooking sheep up to gas masks to measure their methane emissions from belching. It is supposedly much more effective and less cumbersome than previous methods --- though I can’t say that it would look any less ridiculous!

Other efforts to reduce methane emissions from farm animals include research on less “gassy” feed– a way to reduce emissions without reducing animal numbers. Or, maybe it is our own diets that need to change; kangaroo anyone?

Costa Rica Revisted

Its now been ten years. Ten years since I last stepped foot on Costa Rican soil. Fresh out of high school and still trying to find my way in life I somehow drifted down to our continental isthmus. Into a world strange but not unkind.

In one week I'll be heading back down to that lush country, and I could not help but reminisce a little. I admit that I was young and naive when I first found myself in Costa Rica, but that only made my experiences more important. In Costa Rica I learned many life lessons: That I had been a sheltered child, a privileged child, and a child that other people would want to rob, and did. I learned that a human cannot out run a bull. That friends need not speak the same language, and are not permanent. And that Central America has an amazing array of cultural and biological diversity.

I learned these things by leaving behind what I had known and embracing difference, by speaking another language, and absorbing some cultural history found in what we eat.

Being young I traveled the rougher paths, and stayed in the cheaper hostels, and sometimes flirted with danger by drinking... tap water. And rather than other Americans joining me in these enterprises my companions were from Denmark or the British Isles, Korea or Japan. Less often did I meet fellow Americans, and less often did I want to.

Most Americans relish comfort, and it is my fear that when Americans travel in too much comfort, in too much familiarity, that they fail at traveling. Because being in another country should be to push your comfort zone, to rub abrasively against a new language and culture, and in doing so learn something about yourself and the world. Cancun is not traveling. Tijuana is not traveling. Acapulco is not traveling. Resorts, comfort, and familiarity are vacations. Americans need more travel.

Americans are poor global citizens, but I think if we can get out there and meet what's across the border that will change. The next time you travel abroad, push those boundaries, knot your tongue around another language, and I promise I'll do the same. So bring on Costa Rica Round 2. After a ten year hiatus there's nothing I could look forward to more.