http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4856106.stm

Last Updated: Thursday, 30 March 2006, 21:59 GMT 22:59 UK

Giving micropower to the people
  VIEWPOINT
Alan Knight

Countering climate change should begin at home, says Alan Knight in The Green
Room this week. A hands-on approach to energy generation, he argues, gives
people a sense of empowerment and the impetus to reduce their environmental
footprints.

Over the last year, the problems of climate change have loomed larger than ever
on the worldwide stage, with a series of extreme weather events from dramatic
floods and tropical storms to warnings of thinning Arctic sea ice, swelling
temperatures and rising sea levels.

Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased from 354
parts per million to over 380 ppm, and are still growing fast.

At this rate, we're heading towards severe climate change, which would have a
devastating impact on the natural world, health and economies.

However, it's not over yet. We create carbon emissions, and we have the power to
reduce them; if every household in the world reduced its CO2 ouput, the
cumulative effect would be massive.

We need to take practical steps to help people connect with the energy in their
homes, and begin to solve the problem at a personal level, instead of just
searching for a large-scale techno-fix.

It's about giving people the tools they need to do the job.

Practical solutions

We set up the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable - a joint initiative of the
Sustainable Development Commission and the National Consumer Council - to advise
the UK government on the practical steps it should take to help people reduce
their environmental footprint and take control of their energy use.

We'll report our findings next month.

We began our research in October 2005 with a two-day public event in Manchester,
which brought together more than 100 people from across the social spectrum.

We found people were deeply concerned about climate change, but felt locked in
to the systems around them, and looked to the government to instigate change to
help them.

We explored the impact of microgeneration technologies like solar water heating,
mini wind turbines and air source heat pumps on people's attitudes to energy use
in households and schools.

Electricity calculator It is clear that DIY energy generation rarely leaves
people unchanged in their outlook and behaviour. Home-grown energy helps people
engage emotionally with their energy use and take back control of their own
energy consumption.

On the other hand, people without micro-renewable technologies find it more
difficult, if not impossible, to make sense of their energy consumption and
energy bills.

One London woman spoke for all when she said: "Electricity, well it comes from
that little meter... comes straight in here... I have no idea where it comes in
from before that... I've never thought about it."

Empowered

By contrast, those who acquired small-scale energy technologies as tenants of
pioneering social landlords really got to grips with energy issues.

A teenage couple who moved into housing fitted with solar water heating now
actively choose to buy energy efficient A-rated appliances and investigate the
environmental credentials of washable nappies.

"We felt it was better to work with the house than against the house," they
said.

An elderly widow in Kirklees in Scotland, given a new air source heat pump, is
experimenting with different settings on her heating control panel to see how
she can enjoy warmth at minimum cost.

"I didn't realise before that it was the immersion heater running away with the
money," she said. "It's made me more aware of where power is being used in my
house."

In schools with small-scale energy technologies, pupils and teachers feel proud
of their solar panels or wind turbines, and are inspired to live up to the
school's new environmental identity.

On-site renewable energy generation becomes an even bigger motivator when
teachers integrate it into the curriculum.

Making the link

As governments all over the world grapple with how to get householders and
upcoming generations involved in tackling climate change, our findings hold some
important lessons.

The language of "energy efficiency in the home" is currently going over the
heads of householders who do not make the links between their TVs, dishwashers
and thermostats to their worries about global climate change.

Making energy generation part and parcel of people's homes and schools may hold
the key to empowering and engaging energy consumers for the first time.

If so, we cannot afford to leave it to one side in our bid to tackle climate
change.


Alan Knight is the co-chair of the UK's Sustainable Consumption Roundtable.

The Green Room is a series of opinion pieces on environmental issues running
weekly on the BBC News website

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4856106.stm

Published: 2006/03/30 21:59:17 GMT

© BBC MMVI

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.masslive.com/living/republican/index.ssf?/base/living-0/1143794528819\
90.xml&coll=1

Safety in numbers: Storing food in plastic

Friday, March 31, 2006
By STAN FREEMANsfreeman@...

Plastic and Teflon have been godsends to cooks, domestic or otherwise, for more
than a half century, but both have fallen under suspicion in recent years.

Are they, as some contend, subtle dangers to health when used in cooking?

In 2002, via e-mails that spread on the Internet like a grease fire, plastic was
accused of being a potential carcinogen when used in microwaves as a wrapping or
container for food, that deadly dioxins from the plastic could leach into foods
at a high temperature.

Another flurry of e-mails in 2003 charged that if plastic water bottles were put
in the freezer, dioxins in the plastic could leach into the water.

Both claims were dismissed by public health researchers as urban myths, but the
fear that plastics and food do not mix took hold permanently in some kitchens.
It is not an unjustified fear, though.

In fact, health officials have a very real concern about using some plastics in
preparing or storing food. In particular, they worry about using plastics in
microwaves that were not intended for that purpose, such as margarine tubs,
plastic wrap and Styrofoam carryout containers. Compounds in those plastics,
especially the plasticizers that give the plastic its flexibility, pose a health
risk, especially to children. When heated, they migrate into food. Similarly,
putting hot coffee in a Styrofoam cup is likely to add traces of unhealthy
chemicals from the Styrofoam into your drink.

More recently, Teflon fell under an official cloud. In February, a U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency advisory panel recommended that a chemical used
in making Teflon, called perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA, be considered a "likely
carcinogen." Whether cooking with Teflon-coated pans poses any health hazard
remains to be seen. No studies have found a link, but at the same time no study
has proven there is no link at all.

DuPont, where Teflon was the accidental discovery of a chemist in 1938, claims
all traces of PFOA are burned off during the process than puts Teflon on the
utensil surface. However, DuPont's credibility is in question. Last year the EPA
fined DuPont $16.5 million, the largest such fine in EPA history, alleging that
the company hid data on the toxicity of PFOA for more than 20 years and
contaminated the drinking water supply in the Ohio River Valley with PFOA from a
nearby DuPont plant in West Virginia.

"Consuming Teflon, in itself, is not a problem," said Joseph H. Hotchkiss, head
of the Department of Food Science at Cornell University. "Teflon cannot be
metabolized or absorbed (by the body). The issue is with traces of (PFOA) that
may be in the Teflon."

He said "great uncertainty" remains in assessing the health effects of PFOA, and
that tests with animals may not accurately indicate the threat to humans.

"We do not know exactly how to interpret laboratory results where animals are
fed high levels of a compound, which causes problems at those levels, but humans
consume 1,000- to 10,000-fold less of the chemical where no direct problems can
be seen."

Hotchkiss believes Teflon-coated utensils are safe. "My view is that there is
little to be concerned with here.

"The risk, if any, is extremely small. There are many real diet-related risks
that should concern consumers, particularly over consumption of calories, which
is unmistakably a very large heath risk. So don't send the pan to the garbage.
Better yet, simply use it less so you eat fewer calories," Hotchkiss said.

The rumor in 2002 that involved dioxins, plastics and microwaves was eventually
tracked to a television interview with a poorly informed Hawaiian public health
official. A viewer heard the televised claims, then composed an e-mail that
repeated the charges. Once sent, the e-mail multiplied exponentially on the
Internet.

The problem with the claim, as with the later charge that freezing plastic water
bottles also released dioxins, is that "there are no dioxins in plastics," said
Rolf Halden, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health who studies dioxins.

What isn't there in the first place can't magically appear in the microwave.
However, the plasticizers in flexible plastics are a concern, he said.

Plastics that are labeled "microwave safe" are designed for the high
temperatures that the appliances reach. They have a high melting point. However,
such things as margarine tubs, yogurt containers, Styrofoam cups and plastic
shopping bags were not made to be used in cooking of any kind, yet many people,
unaware of the danger, use them to warm or cook foods in the microwave. For
instance, many people will pull meat from the freezer and thaw it by putting the
Styrofoam and plastic wrap package in the microwave. When they do, they are
likely adding plasticizers to the meat.

Plasticizers give plastics their rubbery feel. Phthalates, one category of
plasticizers, are compounds that disrupt the endocrine system in humans and
animals. They act as "synthetic hormones" that may especially affect children
because they are still developing.

"Several European studies found that many plasticizers migrated from plastic
containers and wraps into foods as they were heated in microwave ovens," Halden
said.

"Some of the chemicals were absorbed in high quantities, several hundreds of
milligrams per kilogram of food. The amount of chemical absorbed by the food
depended on the temperature of the container and food, the duration of the
heating, the type of plastic used and its initial plasticizer content, as well
as the type of food being heated," he said.

Halden said that whenever you heat something, you increase the likelihood of
drawing chemicals out of it.

"Some (plastic) drinking straws say on the label 'not for hot beverages.' Most
people think the warning is because someone might be burned. If you put that
straw into a boiling cup of hot coffee, you basically have a hot water
extraction going on, where the chemicals in the straw are being extracted into
your nice cup of coffee," he said.

"If you are cooking with plastics or using plastic utensils, the best thing to
do is to follow the directions and only use plastics that are specifically meant
for cooking," Halden said.

If in doubt, use glass or ceramic containers in the microwave.

The jury is still out on whether the relatively small amounts of chemicals that
leach from plastics are enough to cause health effects. What worries doctors is
the long-term, constant exposure to these small amounts of chemicals. Many
recommend that it is wise to cut the exposure as much as possible through common
sense habits, such as never putting plastics in a microwave and always using
ceramic mugs for coffee rather than Styrofoam cups.

Plastic baby bottles even have their critics. In 1999, Consumer Reports magazine
released a study that found that small amounts of a chemical hormone found in
clear plastic polycarbonate baby bottles seeped into infant formula when the
formula was heated at 212 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 to 30 minutes. Although the
Food and Drug Administration and Juvenile Product Manufacturer's Association
said that polycarbonate bottles were entirely safe, the magazine advised parents
to stop using the plastic bottles and to use either glass bottles, opaque
polyethylene plastic bottles, or bottles with disposable plastic liners instead.

The ubiquitous material Styrofoam is another target of those who worry about
plastics. Styrofoam is indeed a plastic made of the compound styrene. One study
by the EPA found that 100 percent of samples of human fat biopsies that were
tested showed residues of styrene. Styrene is also present in clear plastic
wrap. Styrene is considered a possible human carcinogen by the World Health
Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Meat and cheese, two fatty foods, are frequently packaged in Styrofoam or
plastic wrap. And generally, the higher the fat content of the food, the greater
the absorption of chemicals, whether styrene or plasticizers, from the plastic
into the food when the packaging is heated.

Liquids containing alcohol or acids, such as tea with lemon, will also absorb a
higher amount of the chemicals from plastics than those without alcohol or
acids. And chemicals tend to move more readily into a liquid when it is hot than
when it is cold.

Many who worry about plastics are looking to the future. While most plastics are
currently made from crude oil, the next generation of plastics might be made
from plant matter such as rice, corn or soy. They will be both biodegradable and
recyclable. Some may even be compostable. And they may present none of the
health worries of petroleum-based plastics. Some bio-based plastics are already
in use in packaging for Newman's Own Organics and Del Monte.


©2006 The Republican

© 2006 MassLive.com All Rights Reserved.

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.masslive.com/living/republican/index.ssf?/base/living-0/1143794528819\
90.xml&coll=1

Safety in numbers: Storing food in plastic

Friday, March 31, 2006
By STAN FREEMANsfreeman@...

Plastic and Teflon have been godsends to cooks, domestic or otherwise, for more
than a half century, but both have fallen under suspicion in recent years.

Are they, as some contend, subtle dangers to health when used in cooking?

In 2002, via e-mails that spread on the Internet like a grease fire, plastic was
accused of being a potential carcinogen when used in microwaves as a wrapping or
container for food, that deadly dioxins from the plastic could leach into foods
at a high temperature.

Another flurry of e-mails in 2003 charged that if plastic water bottles were put
in the freezer, dioxins in the plastic could leach into the water.

Both claims were dismissed by public health researchers as urban myths, but the
fear that plastics and food do not mix took hold permanently in some kitchens.
It is not an unjustified fear, though.

In fact, health officials have a very real concern about using some plastics in
preparing or storing food. In particular, they worry about using plastics in
microwaves that were not intended for that purpose, such as margarine tubs,
plastic wrap and Styrofoam carryout containers. Compounds in those plastics,
especially the plasticizers that give the plastic its flexibility, pose a health
risk, especially to children. When heated, they migrate into food. Similarly,
putting hot coffee in a Styrofoam cup is likely to add traces of unhealthy
chemicals from the Styrofoam into your drink.

More recently, Teflon fell under an official cloud. In February, a U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency advisory panel recommended that a chemical used
in making Teflon, called perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA, be considered a "likely
carcinogen." Whether cooking with Teflon-coated pans poses any health hazard
remains to be seen. No studies have found a link, but at the same time no study
has proven there is no link at all.

DuPont, where Teflon was the accidental discovery of a chemist in 1938, claims
all traces of PFOA are burned off during the process than puts Teflon on the
utensil surface. However, DuPont's credibility is in question. Last year the EPA
fined DuPont $16.5 million, the largest such fine in EPA history, alleging that
the company hid data on the toxicity of PFOA for more than 20 years and
contaminated the drinking water supply in the Ohio River Valley with PFOA from a
nearby DuPont plant in West Virginia.

"Consuming Teflon, in itself, is not a problem," said Joseph H. Hotchkiss, head
of the Department of Food Science at Cornell University. "Teflon cannot be
metabolized or absorbed (by the body). The issue is with traces of (PFOA) that
may be in the Teflon."

He said "great uncertainty" remains in assessing the health effects of PFOA, and
that tests with animals may not accurately indicate the threat to humans.

"We do not know exactly how to interpret laboratory results where animals are
fed high levels of a compound, which causes problems at those levels, but humans
consume 1,000- to 10,000-fold less of the chemical where no direct problems can
be seen."

Hotchkiss believes Teflon-coated utensils are safe. "My view is that there is
little to be concerned with here.

"The risk, if any, is extremely small. There are many real diet-related risks
that should concern consumers, particularly over consumption of calories, which
is unmistakably a very large heath risk. So don't send the pan to the garbage.
Better yet, simply use it less so you eat fewer calories," Hotchkiss said.

The rumor in 2002 that involved dioxins, plastics and microwaves was eventually
tracked to a television interview with a poorly informed Hawaiian public health
official. A viewer heard the televised claims, then composed an e-mail that
repeated the charges. Once sent, the e-mail multiplied exponentially on the
Internet.

The problem with the claim, as with the later charge that freezing plastic water
bottles also released dioxins, is that "there are no dioxins in plastics," said
Rolf Halden, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health who studies dioxins.

What isn't there in the first place can't magically appear in the microwave.
However, the plasticizers in flexible plastics are a concern, he said.

Plastics that are labeled "microwave safe" are designed for the high
temperatures that the appliances reach. They have a high melting point. However,
such things as margarine tubs, yogurt containers, Styrofoam cups and plastic
shopping bags were not made to be used in cooking of any kind, yet many people,
unaware of the danger, use them to warm or cook foods in the microwave. For
instance, many people will pull meat from the freezer and thaw it by putting the
Styrofoam and plastic wrap package in the microwave. When they do, they are
likely adding plasticizers to the meat.

Plasticizers give plastics their rubbery feel. Phthalates, one category of
plasticizers, are compounds that disrupt the endocrine system in humans and
animals. They act as "synthetic hormones" that may especially affect children
because they are still developing.

"Several European studies found that many plasticizers migrated from plastic
containers and wraps into foods as they were heated in microwave ovens," Halden
said.

"Some of the chemicals were absorbed in high quantities, several hundreds of
milligrams per kilogram of food. The amount of chemical absorbed by the food
depended on the temperature of the container and food, the duration of the
heating, the type of plastic used and its initial plasticizer content, as well
as the type of food being heated," he said.

Halden said that whenever you heat something, you increase the likelihood of
drawing chemicals out of it.

"Some (plastic) drinking straws say on the label 'not for hot beverages.' Most
people think the warning is because someone might be burned. If you put that
straw into a boiling cup of hot coffee, you basically have a hot water
extraction going on, where the chemicals in the straw are being extracted into
your nice cup of coffee," he said.

"If you are cooking with plastics or using plastic utensils, the best thing to
do is to follow the directions and only use plastics that are specifically meant
for cooking," Halden said.

If in doubt, use glass or ceramic containers in the microwave.

The jury is still out on whether the relatively small amounts of chemicals that
leach from plastics are enough to cause health effects. What worries doctors is
the long-term, constant exposure to these small amounts of chemicals. Many
recommend that it is wise to cut the exposure as much as possible through common
sense habits, such as never putting plastics in a microwave and always using
ceramic mugs for coffee rather than Styrofoam cups.

Plastic baby bottles even have their critics. In 1999, Consumer Reports magazine
released a study that found that small amounts of a chemical hormone found in
clear plastic polycarbonate baby bottles seeped into infant formula when the
formula was heated at 212 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 to 30 minutes. Although the
Food and Drug Administration and Juvenile Product Manufacturer's Association
said that polycarbonate bottles were entirely safe, the magazine advised parents
to stop using the plastic bottles and to use either glass bottles, opaque
polyethylene plastic bottles, or bottles with disposable plastic liners instead.

The ubiquitous material Styrofoam is another target of those who worry about
plastics. Styrofoam is indeed a plastic made of the compound styrene. One study
by the EPA found that 100 percent of samples of human fat biopsies that were
tested showed residues of styrene. Styrene is also present in clear plastic
wrap. Styrene is considered a possible human carcinogen by the World Health
Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Meat and cheese, two fatty foods, are frequently packaged in Styrofoam or
plastic wrap. And generally, the higher the fat content of the food, the greater
the absorption of chemicals, whether styrene or plasticizers, from the plastic
into the food when the packaging is heated.

Liquids containing alcohol or acids, such as tea with lemon, will also absorb a
higher amount of the chemicals from plastics than those without alcohol or
acids. And chemicals tend to move more readily into a liquid when it is hot than
when it is cold.

Many who worry about plastics are looking to the future. While most plastics are
currently made from crude oil, the next generation of plastics might be made
from plant matter such as rice, corn or soy. They will be both biodegradable and
recyclable. Some may even be compostable. And they may present none of the
health worries of petroleum-based plastics. Some bio-based plastics are already
in use in packaging for Newman's Own Organics and Del Monte.


©2006 The Republican

© 2006 MassLive.com All Rights Reserved.

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

_______________________________________________
Foodplanning mailing list
Foodplanning@...
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/foodplanning

http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_cosmetic_companies_shun_toxics.060328.htm

From: Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Mar. 28, 2006

300 Cosmetics and Body Care Companies Pledge Safer Products

Movement Toward Toxic-free Cosmetics Gains Momentum

SAN FRANCISCO -- More than 300 cosmetics and body care products companies have
promised to replace ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects, hormone
disruption and other negative health effects with safer alternatives.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics <http://www.safecosmetics.org/> announced today
that it had more than tripled the number of companies who have signed the
"Compact for the Global Production of Safe Health and Beauty Products," 
<http://www.safecosmetics.org/companies/compact_with_america.cfm> in the past
year, signaling a shift toward healthier products in the cosmetics industry. By
signing the Compact, companies pledge to phase out toxic ingredients within
three years.

Women and girls use an average of 12 personal care products daily, according to
a 2004 survey conducted by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. One out of every 100
personal care products on the market contains known or probable carcinogens and
89 percent of ingredients in products have not been assessed for safety,
according to Skin Deep <http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/>, an online,
brand-by-brand safety guide that contains in-depth information on more than
14,000 products and their ingredients by the Environmental Working Group.

Compact signers include The Body Shop, Burt's Bees, Avalon Natural Products,
Aubrey Organics, Osea Skin Care, Jason Natural Products, Zia Skin Care, EO
Products and Kiss My Face. The names of all signing companies can be found
<http://www.safecosmetics.org/companies/all_signers_page.cfm>here.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics <http://www.safecosmetics.org/> is a coalition
of U.S.-based health and environmental groups working to protect cosmetics
consumers from toxic chemicals and hold companies accountable for the safety of
their products.

"The surge in the number of companies signing the Compact shows that corporate
executives are listening to the voices of concerned consumers," said Bryony
Schwan, national campaigns director for Women's Voices for the Earth
<http://www.womenandenvironment.org/>, one of the founding members of the
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. "Each new company that signs puts more pressure on
the major cosmetics manufacturers to get on board and clean up their products
too."

Despite repeated requests, multinational cosmetics companies such as L'Oreal,
Revlon, Estee Lauder, Gap, Avon, OPI and Proctor & Gamble have refused to sign
the Compact, known as the "Compact for the Global Production of Safe Health and
Beauty Products," which requires that manufacturers meet several criteria,
including:

-- Meeting new EU standards banning chemicals linked to cancer and birth defects
globally;

-- Conducting an inventory of all ingredients to determine whether they use
chemicals that pose health hazards including cancer, hormone disruption, genetic
mutation, reproductive toxicity, developmental harm and neurotoxicity;

-- Implementing substitution plans that replace chemicals of concern with safer
alternatives; and

-- Reporting on their progress in meeting these goals to the public.

Contrary to what many consumers may believe, the FDA does not review or regulate
cosmetics products or ingredients for safety before they are sold to the public
and has no legal authority to require safety assessments of cosmetics.

The EU has led the charge for safer cosmetics. European Union Directive
76/768/EEC
<http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31976L0768:\
EN:HTML>, which became law in 25 European countries on October 1, 2004, requires
products to be free of chemicals that are known or strongly suspected of causing
cancer, genetic mutation or birth defects.

"Companies that market themselves with images of health and beauty should not be
selling us products with ingredients like formaldehyde, coal tar, lead acetate,
phthalates, parabens and toluene, which pose cancer risks and raise other health
concerns," Schwann said.

# # #

Founding members of The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics include:

Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow <http://www.healthytomorrow.org/>

Breast Cancer Fund
<http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/pp.asp?c=kwKXLdPaE&b=43969>

Commonweal <http://www.commonweal.org/>

Friends of the Earth <http://www.foe.org/>

Women's Voices for the Earth <http://www.womenandenvironment.org/>

Environmental Working Group <http://www.ewg.org/>

National Black Environmental Justice Network <http://www.nbejn.org/>

National Environmental Trust <http://www.net.org/>.

For more information and background on the campaign, and a link to the Skin Deep
<http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/> database, visit www.SafeCosmetics.org
<http://www.safecosmetics.org/>.

Lisa Archer
Campaigns Coordinator
Health and Environment Program
Friends of the Earth-US
<larcher@...>larcher@...
202-222-0712
www.foe.org
www.safecosmetics.org

Contacts:
Genevieve Roja
Breast Cancer Fund
(415) 346-8223 x31

Stacy Malkan
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
(510) 848-5343 x105

Dick Bell
Friends of the Earth
202-222-0742


***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060327/full/060327-10.html

Published online: 29 March 2006; | doi:10.1038/news060327-10

NEWS
Make your own energy at home, Britons urged
      UK government energy strategy pushes 'microgeneration'.

Michael Hopkin

Illustration Omitted:
	  Plastering your own roof with solar panels can lower your heating bill, and
help save emissions. © Getty

British politicians are urging people to turn their homes into power plants, by
embracing 'microgeneration'. The scheme could see more homeowners installing
solar panels, rooftop wind turbines and a range of other measures to cut their
power bills and ultimately reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Although such technologies are established methods to create electricity on
small scales, few private households have taken them up. The new campaign aims
to overcome barriers such as cost and planning regulations, which have
traditionally prevented microgeneration from being widely adopted.

The drive was launched by UK Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks on 29 March at a
meeting of microgeneration businesses in London. The strategy will take
advantage of £50 million (US$87 million) earmarked for developing low-carbon
buildings in the UK budget announced last week by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer Gordon Brown.

A recent report to the government predicted that, with enough investment, 30-40%
of Britain's household energy from microgeneration by 2050, up from today's tiny
contribution. The government hasn't yet decided how the available cash should
best be spent to make this happen; tax breaks and subsidies may be part of the
answer.

The strategy is being applauded by environmentalists. But they caution that the
financial barriers are not insubstantial.

Although gadgets such as solar panels or heat exchangers offer savings in energy
bills, they cost hundreds or thousands of pounds to install, says Chris Elliott
of the technology consultancy firm Pitchill Consulting in Ewhurst, UK. "A small
power station will always be more expensive [per unit of electricity] than a big
one," he says. "The answers are not quite as easy as green enthusiasts are
saying."

Cash back

Homeowners are currently offered a knock-down rate of tax on purchases of
microgeneration equipment: just 5% compared with the usual 17.5% added to most
British retail items. Micropower bosses at the London meeting pointed out that
this isn't as generous as it could be, given that industrial power companies can
currently claim all of their tax back.

Part of the attraction of microgeneration is that homeowners may be able to sell
any excess electricity back to the national grid, becoming net providers rather
than consumers of power. But Elliott doubts that the infrastructure is currently
in place to do this. Would-be domestic power tycoons will need a 'smart meter'
to monitor flow in both directions, and local substations will be difficult to
shut down for maintenance if electricity is being fed into them from many
sources.

Sorely needed savings

If successful, the strategy would put Britain more in line with countries such
as Germany and Japan, which boast uptake rates for solar panels some three or
four times greater than those in Britain.

It would also yield cuts in Britain's household carbon emissions of 15% a year
by 2050.

That's a saving that Britain sorely needs to make. In a new review of its
climate strategy, the government admitted that it will not meet its self-imposed
2010 target of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by 20% relative to 1990 levels.
The real figure looks like it will fall between 15 and 18%, Wicks told the
meeting.

Cutting emissions from household use will be a help; some 27% of Britain's total
emissions in 2003 were from domestic power use. "Each of us can and must become
part of the solution," says Wicks.

©2006 Nature Publishing Group

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/26/ING3PHRU681.DTL

The oil in your oatmeal
      A lot of fossil fuel goes into producing, packaging and shipping our
breakfast

Chad Heeter
Sunday, March 26, 2006

Please join me for breakfast. It's time to fuel up again.

On the table in my small Berkeley apartment this morning is a healthy-looking
little meal -- a bowl of imported McCann's Irish oatmeal topped with Cascadian
Farms organic frozen raspberries, and a cup of Peet's Fair Trade Blend coffee.
Like most of us, I prepare my breakfast at home, and the ingredients for this
one probably cost me about $1.25. (If I went to a cafe in downtown Berkeley, I'd
probably have to add $6 more, plus tip, for the same.)

My breakfast fuels me up with about 400 calories, and it satisfies me. So for
just over a buck and half and an hour spent reading the morning paper in my own
kitchen, I'm energized for the next few hours. But before I put spoon to cereal,
what if I consider this bowl of oatmeal porridge (to which I've just added a
little butter, milk and a shake of salt) from a different perspective. Say, a
Saudi Arabian one.

Then what you'd be likely to see -- what's really there, just hidden from our
view (not to say our taste buds) -- is about 4 ounces of crude oil. Throw in
those luscious red raspberries and that cup of java (an additional 3 ounces of
crude), and don't forget those modest additions of butter, milk and salt (1 more
ounce), and you've got a tiny bit of the Middle East right here in my kitchen.

Now, let's drill a little deeper into this breakfast. Just where does this tiny
gusher of oil actually come from? (We'll let this oil represent all fossil fuels
in my breakfast, including natural gas and coal.)

Nearly 20 percent of this oil went into growing my raspberries on Chilean farms
many thousands of miles away, those oats in the fields of County Kildare,
Ireland, and that specially raised coffee in Guatemala -- think tractors as well
as petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides.

The next 40 percent of my breakfast fossil-fuel equation is burned up between
the fields and the grocery store in processing, packaging and shipping.

Take that box of McCann's oatmeal. On it is an inviting image of pure, healthy
goodness: a bowl of porridge, topped by two peach slices. Scattered around the
bowl are a handful of raw oats, what look to be four acorns and three fresh
raspberries. Those raw oats are actually a reminder that the flakes require a
few steps 'twixt field and box. In fact, a visit to McCann's Web site
illustrates each step of cleaning, steaming, hulling, cutting and rolling that
turns the raw oats into edible flakes. Those five essential steps require
significant energy.

Next, my oat flakes go into a plastic bag (made from oil), which in turn is
inserted into an energy-intensive, pressed wood-pulp, printed paper box. Only
then does my breakfast leave Ireland and travel 5,000 fuel-gorging,
carbon-dioxide-emitting miles by ship and truck to my grocery store in
California.

Coming from another hemisphere, my raspberries take an even longer fossil-fueled
journey to my neighborhood. Though packaged in a plastic bag labeled Cascadian
Farms (which perhaps suggests birthplace in the good old Cascade mountains of
northwest Washington), the small print on the back, stamped "A Product of
Chile," tells all -- and what it speaks of is a 5,800-mile journey to Northern
California.

If you've been adding up percentages along the way, perhaps you've noticed that
a few tablespoons of crude oil in my bowl have not been accounted for. That
final 40 percent of the fossil fuel in my breakfast is used up by the simple
acts of keeping food fresh and then preparing it. In home kitchens and
restaurants, chilling in refrigerators and cooking on stoves using electricity
or natural gas gobbles up more energy than you might imagine.

For decades, scientists have calculated how much fossil fuel goes into our food
by measuring the amount of energy consumed in growing, packing, shipping,
consuming and finally disposing of it. The caloric input of fossil fuel is then
compared with the energy available in the edible product, the caloric output.

What they've discovered is astonishing. According to researchers at the
University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Agriculture, an average of more
than 7 calories of fossil fuel is burned up for every calorie of energy we get
from our food. This means that in eating my 400-calorie breakfast, I will, in
effect, have consumed 2,800 calories of fossil fuel energy. (Some researchers
claim the ratio is as high as 10 to 1.)

But this is only an average. My cup of coffee gives me just a few calories of
energy, but to process 1 pound of coffee requires more than 8,000 calories of
fossil-fuel energy -- the equivalent energy found in nearly a quart of crude
oil, 30 cubic feet of natural gas or about 2 1/2 pounds of coal.

So how do you gauge how much oil went into your food?

First check out how far it traveled. The farther it went, the more oil it
required. Next, gauge how much processing went into the food. A fresh apple is
not processed, but Kellogg's Apple Jacks cereal requires enormous amounts of
energy to process. The more processed the food, the more oil it requires. Then
consider how much packaging is wrapped around your food. Buy fresh vegetables
instead of canned, and buy bulk beans, grains, and flour if you want to reduce
that packaging.

You may think you're in the clear because you eat strictly organically grown
foods. When it comes to fossil-fuel calculations though, that isn't relevant.
However it is grown, a raspberry is shipped, packed and chilled the same way.

There is some energy savings in growing organically, but it's probably slight.
According to a study by David Pimentel at Cornell University, 30 percent of
fossil-fuel expenditure on farms growing conventional (nonorganic) crops is
found in chemical fertilizer.

This 30 percent is not consumed on organic farms, but only if the manure used as
fertilizer is produced very close to the farm. Manure is a heavy, bulky product.

If farms have to truck bulk manure more than a few miles, the savings is eaten
up in diesel-fuel consumption, according to Pimentel.

One source of manure for organic farmers in California is chicken producer
Foster Farms. Organic farmers in Monterey County, for example, will truck tons
of Foster's manure from their main plant in Livingston (Merced County) to fields
more than 100 miles away.

So the next time we're at the grocer, do we now have to ask not only where and
how a product was grown, but how far its manure was shipped?

Well, if you're in New York City picking out a California-grown tomato that was
fertilized with organic compost made from kelp shipped from Nova Scotia, maybe
it's not such a bad question.

But should we give up on organic? If you're buying organic raspberries from
Chile each week, then yes. The fuel cost is too great, as is the resulting
production of the greenhouse gases.

But if there was truth in packaging, where my oatmeal box now tells me how many
calories I get from each serving, it would also tell me how many calories of
fossil fuels went into the product.

On a scale from one to five -- with one being nonprocessed, locally grown
products and five being processed, packaged imports -- we could quickly average
the numbers in our shopping cart to get a sense of the ecological footprint of
our diet.

What appeared to be my simple, healthy meal of oatmeal, berries and coffee looks
different now. I thought I was essentially driving a Toyota Prius hybrid by
having a very fuel-efficient breakfast, but by the end of the week, I've eaten
the equivalent of more than two quarts of Valvoline.

From the perspective of fossil-fuel consumption, I now look at my breakfast as a
waste of precious resources. What I eat for breakfast connects me to the planet,
deep into its past with the fossilized remains of plants and animals which are
now fuel, and into the future, when these nonrenewable resources will probably
be in scant supply.

Maybe these thoughts are too grand to be having over breakfast, but I'm not the
only one on the planet eating this morning. My meal traveled thousands of miles
to reach my plate.

Then there's the rise of perhaps 600 million middle-class Indians and Chinese,
already demanding the convenience of packaged meals and foreign flavors.

What happens when middle-class families in India or China decide they want their
Irish oats for breakfast and topped by organic raspberries from Chile? They'll
dip more and more into the planet's communal oil well. And someday soon, we'll
all suck it dry.


A crude menu

A lot of fossil-fuel energy goes into the production of food:

-- Bowl of oatmeal porridge: 4 ounces of crude oil.

-- Serving of red raspberries: 1 ounce of crude oil.

-- Butter, milk and salt: 1 ounce of crude oil.

-- That cup of java: 2 ounces of crude oil.

-- Energy required to produce 1 pound of coffee: a quart of crude oil, 30 cubic
feet of natural gas, or about 2 1/2 pounds of coal.

-- Energy required to produce one week's worth of breakfast for one person: More
than 2 quarts of crude oil.

Chad Heeter grew up eating fossil fuels in Lee's Summit, Mo. He's a freelance
writer, a documentary filmmaker and a former high school science teacher.
Contact us at insight@....

Page F - 1


©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept

Supplying organic fix to U.S. pays off for Brazil

By Colin McMahon and Andrew Martin, Tribune correspondents. Colin McMahon
reported from Brazil and Andrew Martin from Washington

April 2, 2006

SERTAOZINHO, Brazil -- Growing up on his family's sugar plantation, Leontino
Balbo slept like a dream. The hard work, fresh air and lullaby of the sugar
mill's machinery brought him peace.

Years later, the place would keep Balbo up at night. After becoming agricultural
director of the farm, Balbo took a giant risk. He threw away things his family
had learned. He embraced things his family had forgotten. He turned the farm
organic, abandoning pesticides, chemical fertilizers and methods of planting and
harvesting that had served the family's bottom line for years.

Sugar cane yields fell. Critics snickered. The men who were not just his blood
but also his bosses asked, "You sure you know what you're doing?" And Balbo lay
awake, asking that of himself, but vowing to see the project through.

`I felt the pressure'

Now the Sao Francisco mill in Sertaozinho boasts higher yields than ever, some
of the highest in Brazil's sugar-rich Sao Paulo state. Fellow cane growers come
to Balbo for advice. And capitalizing on a lack of organic raw ingredients in
the United States, Grupo Balbo supplies several prominent American foodmakers,
including Whole Foods Private Label and Newman's Own.

"I felt the pressure so heavily," Balbo said, conducting a tour of his cane
fields in a sport-utility vehicle powered by ethanol produced from organic
sugar. "I was so thin. I had to take medicine to sleep. . . . But I do not like
easy things. My family does not like easy things."

The difficult conversion to organic has paid dividends beyond even Balbo's
hopes. The dark green cane in the farm's rolling fields can rise 15 feet high,
and yields have shot up about 20 percent since the farm started converting to
organic in 1995.

Sugar is Balbo's chief export. Almost half of all organic sugar consumed in the
United States, and nearly 40 percent worldwide, comes from Balbo's Sao Francisco
mill, according to industry analysts. Balbo's own brand of organic food
products, called Native, also is starting to appear on American shelves.

Balbo's organic products join others from Brazil in American stores, as well as
items such as raspberries from Chile, broccoli from Mexico and blueberries from
Quebec.

Sales of organic food and beverages increase an average of 20 percent a year in
the United States and reached an estimated $14.5 billion in 2005. Though the
number of American farmers growing organically has surged as well, they still
cannot meet U.S. consumer demand. So foodmakers look abroad.

That dismays some in the organic movement who believe the "local" aspect of
organic farming is as important as the process. But producers say they have no
other choice.

"The imports aren't supplanting what we grow here," said Katherine DiMatteo of
the Organic Trade Association in Greenfield, Mass. "People are going there
because we don't have enough. It's a question of conversion of U.S. land to more
organics."

A U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in February 2005 estimated that
organic imports exceed exports 8-1. U.S. imports of organic products are
estimated at $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year.

If a product is not made of at least 95 percent independently certified organic
ingredients, it cannot be labeled "organic." And the supply of organic raw
materials is so tight in the United States that Stonyfield Farm of Londonderry,
N.H., has had to substitute ingredients and remove the "organic" label from
several items in its line of yogurts, ice creams and drinks.

"It's like a morgue in here when that happens," said Nancy Hirshberg, vice
president of natural resources for Stonyfield Farm, who buys her company's sugar
from Balbo in Brazil.

In the dairy industry, growth is penned in by the scarcity of organic feed, said
Lynn Clarkson, president of Clarkson Grain in Cerro Gordo, Ill. Dairy farmers
have to look overseas, primarily to China.

Beyond that, farmers in some other countries are just better prepared to answer
the demand for organic products, Clarkson said. He mentioned China, Brazil and
Argentina as having fewer obstacles to organic farming, partly because their
land has been less subjected to chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Not an easy transition

The transition for Balbo was not so easy as clearing a new patch and seeding it
with cane. Balbo had to wean Sao Francisco's fields off chemicals, and he had to
change the way the mill processed the sugar to meet the standards demanded by
the organic industry.

To some of his fellow growers, the change was lunacy.

"People said to me, `You are going to ruin the family business,'" Balbo
recalled.

But Balbo persuaded his partners and bosses to stick with the Green Cane
Project, as the conversion was called, through the transition years of 1995-97.
By 2000, Sao Francisco's yields had surpassed the best harvests achieved using
conventional methods. And Balbo decided to go Native.

Balbo, 45, is not only the agricultural director of Sao Francisco but also
commercial director for the Native brand of organic products. Besides packaged
organic sugar, which is turning up in more coffee shops in Brazil, Native also
sells coffee, powdered chocolate, fruit juices and other products. Launched in
2000, Native started turning a profit in 2005, Balbo said.

The skeptics had underestimated not only the market for organic sugar but also
the Balbo family's willingness to take risks and its pride in a history of
innovation.

Balbo had to turn his back on some things he and his brothers and cousins had
learned growing up in the age of chemical farming. But in doing so, he
rediscovered some Balbo family principles. The Balbos had always challenged one
another to invent the best methods or best tools and machinery to farm.

The Balbos helped design a new harvester that spreads the leaves and other waste
from the cane, providing cover to protect the soil and control weeds. Waste
products from the distillation of sugar into ethanol are turned into a potent
fertilizer.

Pests are controlled in a number of ways, including the raising of tens of
thousands of tiny wasps that infect a type of caterpillar that can be deadly for
sugar cane. The wasps are hatched in the bug building at the plantation,
nurtured until they can fly and then released by the cupful into the fields.

Beneficial critters, such as earthworms, are protected, partly by the use of
tilling and harvesting methods that do not compact the soil.

Sao Francisco also has returned some of its land to woods. That not only brought
back wildlife not seen in the region for decades, but also has helped combat
erosion.

"We are using the most advanced technology combined with the traditional ways of
natural farming," Balbo said. "You have to give nature an opportunity to
participate in the stewardship of the soil. ... We treat the farms as a living
organism, while most conventional farmers treat their farms as being sick."

----------

cmcmahon@...

ajmartin@...

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/01/nfarm101.xml

20 years on, Britain still feels the effects of Chernobyl
By Catriona Davies
(Filed: 01/04/2006)

Before Emlyn Roberts, a North Wales sheep farmer, can take any of his lambs to
market, he has to call in the government inspectors with their Geiger counters.
They scan the animals for signs of radiation because the land they graze is
still contaminated from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster which occurred 20 years
ago this month. If the radiation levels are too high, the lambs cannot be sold
for meat until they have spent time on other land.

Mr Roberts is one of 375 British farmers, with more than 200,000 sheep, whose
land is still considered "dirty" and subject to restrictions brought in after
radioactive rains brought contamination to Britain in 1986.

When the restrictions were established, farmers were told they would apply for
only a few weeks, months at most. Twenty years later, many farmers have had to
accept that their land could be affected for years to come.

Immediately after the world's worst nuclear reactor meltdown in Ukraine, almost
9,000 British farms were placed under restrictions. Now 95 per cent of the land
has been cleared, but it still affects 355 farms in Wales, 11 in Scotland and
nine in Cumbria. The land is monitored continually by the Food Standards Agency.

The farmers need to obtain a licence every time they want to move their sheep
and call in Government inspectors to scan each animal before it can be sold.
They are paid £1.30 compensation for each sheep scanned, the same as in 1986.

Mr Roberts, 39, is the fourth generation of his family to run Esgairgawr farm,
in Dolgellau, North Wales, where he keeps 1,000 sheep. He usually calls in
inspectors every week between July and December, when his lambs are sold.

"At peak times, we have to give the inspectors seven days notice, so we can
never take advantage of sudden improvements in trade and always have to plan
well in advance," he said. "It's worrying that something that happened thousands
of miles away can still have such an effect on us."

Rhodri Jones, 28, the fifth generation of his family to run the 650-acre Bryn
Llech Uchaf farm in Llanuwchllyn, near Bala, keeps up to 700 sheep. More than
half of the farm is on a mountain within the contaminated area. He said: "In
1986 we got £1.30 a head compensation, and it hasn't gone up in 20 years."

Glyn Roberts, 50, a father-of-five with a sheep farm in Padog, near
Betws-y-Coed, said: "When the restrictions first started they said it would only
last for six months, but 20 years later it is still here."


© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006.

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article355200.ece

Pollution: Where have all the baby boys gone?
      Every year, thousands of British babies who should be boys are born girls.
The answer to this mystery could lie in a small town in Canada. Geoffrey Lean
reports

Published: 02 April 2006

Something very strange is happening in a small but highly polluted Canadian
community. And it may explain why every year thousands of British babies who
should be boys are born as girls instead.

Young boys are becoming hard to find on the Chippewa Indian reservation in the
gritty town of Sarnia, in Ontario's "Chemical Valley". It boasts four children's
softball teams, but three of them are made up entirely of girls.

Research shows that the number of boys being born to the community has been
dropping precipitously for the past 13 years, while the proportion of baby girls
has risen. Now there are twice as many female births as male ones, though nature
normally keeps the sexes in balance.

Scientists increasingly believe that pollution is to blame and that what has
happened here - and among some other highly contaminated groups of people in
other countries - may solve an enduring mystery of "missing boys" in maternity
units throughout the industrialised world.

Normally, and with remarkable consistency around the globe, 106 boys are born
for every 100 girls; the excess is thought to be nature's way of compensating
for the fact that males were more likely to be killed through hunting and
conflicts.

But this figure has been slowly declining in rich countries over the past
quarter of a century. In Britain it has fallen to about 105 since 1977 -which
suggests that every year more than 3,000 babies are born as girls instead boys.
Studies have revealed much the same story in the US, Canada, the Netherlands and
the Scandinavian countries.

Suggested explanations have included increasing stress and rising numbers of
single mothers; women in difficulties, it has been found, produce more girls
than boys. But what is happening in Sarnia, on the US Canadian border, is
increasingly turning the spotlight on pollution.

The Chippewa Indians of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation Community have long lived
in the area, on the southern tip of Lake Huron, not far from Detroit. Their
right to the land was confirmed in 1827, but much of it was taken over by
industry in the 1960s.

Now their woods and homes are entirely surrounded by one of the world's most
extensive petrochemical complexes, producing 40 per cent of Canada's entire
output of plastics, synthetic rubber and other chemical compounds. The air
stinks, and the ground is contaminated with high levels of dangerous pollutants.

It was those softball teams that first got the 870 people of the community
thinking that many more girls than boys were being born. Among them was Ada
Lockridge, a 42-year-old home help aide, who sits on the community's council.
She and her sister had eight daughters between them, and only one son.

She started counting all the babies born to the community since 1984, Until 1993
girls and boys were in normal balance, but then the number of male births
started plummeting. "I felt like I wanted to throw up," she says. "I did a lot
of crying. And then I got angry."

She joined up with researchers from the University of Ottawa and together they
published an article in a leading scientific journal. It reported "a significant
ongoing decrease in the number of male births beginning in the early 1990s".

Only 35 per cent of babies now are boys, and there is no sign of the decline
levelling off. The study could not prove a cause, but pointed the finger at
"multiple chemical exposures over the years".

Other, non-native communities downwind of the complex also have less dramatic
reductions in male births, while those upwind do not. And many studies have
shown sex changes in fish and wildlife in the lake nearby.

Ada Lockridge points to a fire and chemical release at one of the chemical
plants in 1993 as a possible culprit.

The findings tally with other research around the world. People exposed to high
levels of dioxin in the 1976 accident in Seveso, Italy, also have twice as many
girl as boy children. The same is true for Russian men exposed to pesticides
containing the chemical.

And Brazilian scientists have reported that the proportion of boy babies fell in
the most polluted parts of the city of São Paulo.

Professor Shanna Swan of the University of Ro chester, New York - not far from
Sarnia - says that levels of contamination on the reservation are "incredible"
and that the "first assumption" must be that they are to blame. She believes
that changing sex ratios may often provide an indication of dangerous pollution,
and that low levels of exposure to such ubiquitous chemicals as dioxins and PCBs
may explain the decline in boys in industrialised countries.


Additional reporting by Martin Mittelstaedt in Ontario

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_15/b3979109.htm

APRIL 10, 2006

ENVIRONMENT
HP Wants Your Old PCs Back
      It's pushing states to force recycling of TVs, computers, and other e-gear.
Here's why

A few years ago, when environmentalists in Washington State began agitating to
rid local dumps of toxic old computers and televisions, they found an unexpected
ally: Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ ). Teaming up with greens and retailers, HP took
on IBM (IBM ), Apple Computer (AAPL ), and several major TV manufacturers, which
were resisting recycling programs because of the costs.

Aided by HP's energetic lobbying, the greens persuaded state lawmakers to adopt
a landmark program that forces electronics companies to foot the bill for
recycling their old equipment. "This bill puts our market-based economy to work
for the environment," said Washington Governor Christine O. Gregoire as she
signed the plan into law on Mar. 24.

The movement to recycle electronic refuse, or "e-waste," is spreading across the
nation, and so is HP's clout. The company helped the greens win a big battle in
Maine in 2004 when the state passed the nation's first e-waste "take-back" law.
Washington followed suit. Now, Minnesota and New Jersey are preparing to act,
and 19 other states are weighing legislation. Activists hope to banish high-tech
junk from landfills and scrub the nation's air and water of lead, chromium,
mercury, and other toxins prevalent in digital debris.

HP's efforts have made it the darling of environmentalists. They say take-back
laws are more effective at getting digital junk recycled than point-of-sale
fees, which tax consumer electronics products to fund state-run recycling
programs. They're also pleased because effective programs in the U.S. reduce the
likelihood that the products will be shipped to less developed countries and
disassembled under unsafe conditions.

But HP's agenda isn't entirely altruistic. Take-back laws play to the company's
strategic strengths. For decades the computer maker has invested in recycling
infrastructure, a move that has lowered its production costs, given it a leg up
in the secondary market for equipment, and allowed it to build a customer
service out of "asset management," which includes protection of data that might
remain on discarded gear.

In 2005, HP recycled more than 70,000 tons of product, the equivalent of about
10% of company sales and a 15% increase from the year before. And it collected
more than 2.5 million units (in excess of 25,000 tons) of hardware to be
refurbished for resale or donation.

No other electronics maker has a resale business on this scale. But the others
may soon wish to emulate HP. "We see legislation coming," says David Lear, HP's
vice-president for corporate, social, and environmental responsibility. "A lot
of companies haven't stepped up to the plate.... If we do this right, it becomes
an advantage to us."

For television makers, on the other hand, take-back laws are terrifying.
Following the lead of PC makers, they're pushing consumers to replace their
bulky television sets with flat-screen models, many of them primed for high-
definition viewing. As a result, in the next three years, Americans are expected
to throw out more than 550 million analog TV sets and computer monitors that
contain thousands of tons of lead. The last thing these companies want are
coast-to-coast take-back laws.

More than a dozen consumer electronics companies, including Panasonic (MC ),
Sony (SNE ), and Philips, have formed a group called the Manufacturers Coalition
for Responsible Recycling. Backed by IBM, Canon and Apple, they have dispatched
lobbyists to statehouses across the nation, pushing bills that mirror
California's somewhat weak recycling program. Instead of forcing manufacturers
to take back waste, they would impose a levy of up to $10 on sales of products
to help states cover recycling costs without burdening equipment makers.

The e-waste skirmish is part of an important new front in global
environmentalism called product stewardship. Proponents argue that a company's
responsibility for what it sells should include collection and disassembly at
the end of the product's life cycle. As a slogan, product stewardship has been
around since the Earth Days of the 1970s, but it is now a serious force in the
auto and electronics sectors of Japan and Europe. The movement is likely to
broaden in the U.S. as well. Several states are strong-arming auto makers into
using less toxic parts, persuading thermostat manufacturers to fund bounties for
the return of old mercury-laden devices, and pushing pharmaceutical giants to
redesign packaging to reduce waste and accept unused medications for disposal.

But manufacturers have many concerns, including the fact that take-back laws
such as Maine's allocate costs based on the weight of the junk consumers return.
Consider the implications for big picture tubes: A company like LG Electronics,
which owns the Zenith brand, could end up being responsible for heaps of old
Zenith TVs, even though LG's market share is relatively small. And IBM, which
has abandoned the PC market, might still be forced to recycle millions of
machines bearing its logo. "They're really discriminating against legacy
manufacturers," says coalition spokesman David A. Thompson, director of
Panasonic Corp.'s Corporate Environmental Dept. "New market entrants have no
waste stream. They're getting a free ride in Maine and Washington."

BRUISED APPLE

Environmentalists' biggest disappointment has been Apple Computer Inc. The
company's progressive image, loyal customers, and retail network make it a
natural for a take-back program. Yet Apple has fought such programs, and it lags
behind HP and Dell Inc. (DELL ) in voluntary recycling. During Maine's
legislative fight, "they were doing more than any other manufacturer to fight
the bill," says Jon Hinck, staff attorney for Maine's Natural Resources Council.

When shareholders at last year's annual meeting hit Apple over the Maine bill,
CEO Steven P. Jobs publicly dismissed the gripe with a barnyard profanity. This
year, green groups have put a resolution on the agenda of the Apr. 27
shareholder meeting that directs Apple to study how to boost recycling. "They
are laggards in a number of ways on the issue of e-waste. It's come to the point
where we need to have the company confronted," says Conrad MacKerron, director
of the corporate social responsibility program at As You Sow Foundation, a green
advocacy group that pushed the resolution.

Apple says critics ignore the company's efforts to use recyclable and clean
materials in its products. It has cut lead use and says that, by weight, 90% of
Apple computers can be recycled. Their sleek designs and spare packaging also
mean less waste, says Chief Operating Officer Timothy D. Cook. "It's important
to look at the whole of the process," he says, "not just one part." Cook also
argues that take-back programs overlook a key fact: "Recycling is a
responsibility of the person who makes the product, the people who use the
product, the people who sell the product, and the government."

If Apple hopes to catch up with HP, it might have to think harder about the
first part of that sentence.


Copyright 2006, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2006/03/29/organic-pesticide/index.html?source=w\
eekly

Bug Me Not
On organic pesticides
29 Mar 2006

Dear Umbra,

Recently, an article in my newspaper stated that federal and state guidelines
allow the spraying of "organic pesticides" on organic crops. I thought organic
crops were pesticide-free. I am very disappointed to find out that there are
sanctioned "organic pesticides" which, with probably little to no independently
researched information, may or may not pose a risk to my health. Tell me the
paper got it wrong (please)!

Art
Bakersfield, Calif.


Dearest Art,

Nope. Let me try to soften the letdown, though. What is a pesticide? In the
simplest view, it is a substance that kills vegetative or animal pests. It's not
realistic to expect farmers to eschew killing pests, and I doubt that you have
lived your entire life without killing a pest yourself.

Illustration Omitted:
	  You've got snail.  Photo: iStockphoto.

There are pesticides, and there are pesticides. White vinegar is a pesticide, as
you can easily confirm by pouring it on a weed at home. It's a chemical. There
are also infamous pesticides such as organophosphates -- these are more the type
of chemicals that preoccupy you, I believe. Organophosphates kill insects by
stopping an enzyme from regulating a neurotransmitter; if the neurotransmitter
is not regulated, the nerves spaz out and get tired, resulting in weakness,
paralysis, and -- the farmer hopes -- death.

Organophosphates are quite useful because they are "broad spectrum," i.e., kill
many types of insect. They can also be quite dangerous if used incorrectly, and
many of us believe they are dangerous even if used correctly, because their
neural damage is not limited to insects. They are the largest group of
pesticides, with 60 million pounds spread annually in the U.S. I'd rather not
subject land, agricultural workers, and myself to organophosphates. Pesticides
are widely used in conventional ag because they work well in the short term and
don't take much effort (read: money) compared to paying people to weed. It's one
reason you pay less for conventional food.

Are the pesticides used by organic farmers comparable to those used in
conventional agriculture? You can peruse the list of allowable substances if you
wish, scrolling down the National Organic Program standards to the section
beginning at 205.600, and you'll see that the pesticides available to organic
farmers are quite limited. (Or maybe you won't see that until, say, you check
out the list of new active ingredients registered by the U.S. EPA's pesticide
program in recent years and do a little comparing.) Only a few synthetics are
allowed in organic farming, and those used for dire situations come with strict
guidelines.

Because organic farmers are restricted in what they can use to kill pests -- and
want to be restricted -- they do what they can to avoid pests in the first
place, using crop rotation, intercropping, beneficial insects, tillage, and
other high-labor techniques to reduce infestation. When they do spray, it's the
last resort, it's going to be a chemical, and its point will be to kill. You
can't get around the facts, but you can celebrate the reduced toxicity. Hurrah!

As my regular readers know, I advocate getting to know your producer as the path
to a better understanding of how your food is grown. You live in California,
man! I find four Bakersfield farmers' markets on the USDA list, three of which
are year-round. While I do not recommend you approach growers with the exact
question you wrote to me, if you find a nonconfrontational way to phrase it --
"Can you explain the difference between organic and non-organic pesticides? I've
been confused" -- and approach a farmer during a slow time, I think you'll get a
reassuring and helpful response. Or you can grow your own food and try not to
kill a single slug in the process.

Baitily,
Umbra

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Please send Umbra any
nagging question pertaining to the environment -- but first check out her FAQs!

The claims made in this column may not reflect the views of this magazine.
Neither the magazine nor the author guarantees that any advice contained in this
column is wise or safe. Please use this column at your own risk.


©2006. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of
humor®.

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/living/14266563.htm

Posted on Wed, Apr. 05, 2006

Jonathan Takiff | Toxic fallout
States are getting tough on e-waste

CLEARLY, WE LOVE our TV sets, computers, cell phones and mobile music makers.
We've got 2 billion of these gizmos humming in our homes and small businesses.

But do we also love our electronics enough to offer them a decent burial when
we're done with them?

That's a question of rapidly escalating concern to ecological activists and some
environmentally conscious state governments.

More than half-a-billion pounds of toxic electronic products are now going into
the U.S. waste stream every year, polluting the groundwater with lead, mercury,
cadmium, chromium, plastics and brominated flame retardants. And with a rapid
uptick in technological advancements looming, there's strong potential for the
e-waste tonnage to rise by a factor of four or more in the coming years.

HERE COMES THE BIG ONE: Eco-alarmists envision a virtual "tsunami" of high-tech
garbage as consumption escalates, and we consumers finally feel compelled to
empty our private "closet dumps," where 75 percent of discarded electronics
still reside, estimated Elizabeth Grossman, author of the forthcoming "High Tech
Trash - Digital Devices, Hidden Toxins and Human Health" (Island Press, $25.95).

In recent months, Washington state and Maine have enacted comprehensive laws to
require proper recycling or disposal of e-waste. These consumer-friendly laws
put all the burden on established electronics manufacturers to foot the bills,
even for recycling "orphan" TVs, PCs and such whose makers are no longer in
business.

California, the old-timer in e-waste environment legislation (harking way back
to 2003), takes a different tack, with electronics recycling laws more akin to a
"bottle bill," or the major e-waste policies already in place in Japan and
Europe. There, consumers make an advance recycling payment whenever buying a new
product, with that money going into a treatment fund for today's discarded
goods.

The fee is modest - $5-$35 - noted Panasonic's Dave Thompson, "because for every
five new products bought, only one old one will actually be thrown away."

Most product makers applaud these advance fees "as more equitable and
consciousness raising," said Consumer Electronics Association environmental
policy spokesperson Christine Taylor.

Iowa, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maryland also have e-waste laws on the
books, and about 20 other states have pending legislation. A bill floating
around the Pennsylvania House of Representatives would ban the dumping of TVs
and computer monitors in landfills, said the EPA's Charles Young. There's also
been discussion of forming a regional "compact," several states collaborating in
a joint recycling system.

CEA's members also believe the current "patchwork" of laws, volunteer recycling
projects and sporadic product drop-off days is confusing and inefficient.
"Ultimately, we think a national recycling policy should be established," said
Taylor.

One major point of contention - the Maine law puts no payment burdens on new
electronic brands - so these producers can price their Third World-sourced goods
even more competitively. "This could drive even more American operations out of
business," grumbled one executive.

The Washington state law likewise holds a big loophole. Computer giants
Hewlett-Packard and Dell can (and will) set up private recycling systems that
just deal with their own branded products. In so doing, these companies will be
able to slough off the burden of processing orphaned computers from
once-dominant brands like Packard Bell and American-owned IBM.

FROM BAD TO WORSE: Clearly, everybody loves electronics. Yearly U.S. sales of CE
products have more than quadrupled over the past decade. On average, every
person in America owns at least six high-tech items.

Fashionable goodies like mobile phones are now found in the pockets of more than
200 million consumers, connecting two-thirds of the population. About 250
million TV sets are humming in American homes, almost one per person.

Computer penetration in the United States is estimated at "over 500 per thousand
of population." That's the highest concentration of any large country in the
world.

But thanks to planned obsolescence and changing fashion, many CE products that
seem fresh today might look stale tomorrow.

At the moment, mobile phones are the most outrageous example. On average, each
phone is replaced with a slimmer, more colorful or more gizmo-laden model every
18 months, though the old model often still makes and takes calls just fine.
Looming improvements in the species will surely keep the mobilistas trading up.

Coming attractions include higher-quality, multichannel video reception,
high-data rate ("Wi-MAX") two-way video conferencing services and "near field"
communications technology that will let you deploy a mobile phone as a credit
card and instant data-capturing device.

Computer users are accustomed to a three-year replacement schedule, encouraged
to upgrade by the lure of regularly doubling processing power (Moore's Law) and
improved operating systems. Microsoft will spring its Vista OS on the world
early next year, sure to kick off a whole 'nother cycle.

It's even clearer that tens of millions of TVs will be going into the Dumpster
this decade. This year alone, 12 million U.S. consumers will upgrade to the new
look and quality of flat-panel TVs, as much for their decorative charms as their
improved digital performance. And come February 2009, the 13 percent to 15
percent of TV viewers who still nab their signals over the air will be forced to
upgrade to a digital set (or signal converting box) when analog TV broadcasts
are shut off for good.

On top of that, the widescreen formatting of most digital channels will get
viewers with boxy-screened sets fully charged for a trade-up.

It's hardly a coincidence that Washington State's e-waste recycling program goes
into gear the month before the digital TV transition is completed.


Send e-mail to takiffj@....

  * * *

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/technology/techspecial4/05recycle.html?_r=1&or\
ef=slogin

Growing Worry for Businesses: Old Computers

By LAURIE J. FLYNN
Published: April 4, 2006

It could contain traces of mercury, cadmium, fire retardant and up to five
pounds of lead, making it one of the biggest sources of hazardous waste in the
country.

And it is sitting right on your desk.

It is your aging personal computer, a piece of equipment that is a lot easier to
buy than to dispose of properly. With the rate of obsolescence accelerating -
most organizations now consider a personal computer outdated in three years -
dealing with old equipment is no small matter. Last year, more than 63 million
computers in the United States were replaced by faster, better and most likely
cheaper systems. Where does it all go?

Businesses in the United States are just beginning to address that question with
some planning and coordination. Those that have taken control of their
electronic waste problems are finding it can pay off in many ways.

For Kaiser Permanente, a well-thought-out electronic waste plan has given the
company great leverage in negotiating with equipment vendors, said Lynn Garske,
Kaiser's environmental stewardship manager. Today, it buys only from
manufacturers that meet its guidelines for reducing the use of certain toxic
substances like mercury, a requirement that extends beyond computers to medical
supplies and even carpeting. (Mercury and cadmium are still used, in some cases,
in the printed circuit boards that are found in PC's.)

"We wanted to send them a signal that we were taking seriously the elimination
of toxic chemicals," Ms. Garske said. Computer manufacturers have been working
for years on reducing the amount of waste their systems create. Apple Computer
uses no mercury or cadmium, and has reduced the amount of lead by converting
from screens with cathode-ray tubes, which have lead, to liquid-crystal
displays.

Michael Green, executive director of the Center for Environmental Health, said
that more and more companies were discovering the influence they have on the
materials that manufacturers use in making computers. "If a company that buys
25,000 computers says they'll only buy from them if they'll agree to take it
back when they're done with it, it can make a profound difference," Mr. Green
said.

Like many companies, Kaiser works with a single recycling broker to deal with
its hazardous waste, a process it started in 1999. Since then, the company,
based in Oakland, Calif., has replaced 64,000 computers. Of those, 10,000 were
moved to other areas within Kaiser, and 14,000 were recycled. The remaining
40,000 were sold to individuals and organizations, many overseas, where demand
is high for used equipment.

For businesses, the challenge is finding a recycling broker who can ensure that
the computers are actually being recycled. While reports from regulatory
agencies vary, some estimate that as much as 80 percent of old computer
equipment and other electronics collected for recycling end up in landfills in
developing countries in Asia, South America or Africa. While dumping electronic
waste is illegal in the United States, the international market is largely
unregulated, making abuse rampant. To make matters worse, some of this equipment
arrives at the landfills still containing private information, including
financial and health records.

To try to regulate the recycling industry, the Basel Action Network, an
environmental advocacy organization in Seattle, and the Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition have developed rigorous criteria for dismantling and recycling
electronic waste. Recyclers that are part of this program must agree to prevent
hazardous waste from going to landfills or to developing countries, and they
must agree not to use prison labor to take computers apart, once a common
practice among recyclers. Recyclers who comply can then market themselves with
something akin to a seal of approval. Dozens of recycling companies nationwide
have made the list, which is available at the advocacy groups' Web sites, among
other places.

Kaiser signed with its recycling broker after weeding out organizations that did
not meet those criteria. Most important, Kaiser demanded a guarantee that the
data on its discarded systems remain confidential, Ms. Garske said.

Several states have recently passed laws mandating who pays for the recycling of
electronics. California requires customers to pay an electronic waste recycling
fee at the time of sale. Maine, Maryland and most recently Washington, on the
other hand, place the burden on the manufacturer to recycle used electronics,
including collecting and transporting it.

Tom Delia, president of Advanced Recycling Technology, a recycler in Hudson,
N.Y., said that companies could increase the value of their outdated equipment
by taking careful inventory. That way, when the recycling truck arrives the
company can easily see which machines are most likely to be resalable and which
are destined for the dismantlers. For example, documenting the types of
microprocessors inside a system lets a recycler quickly determine its resale
value.

"Most companies don't want to put the time into qualifying their technology,"
Mr. Delia said. For those organizations that keep records of their equipment,
recycling is cheaper because the recycler's costs go down, he said.

Mr. Delia estimated that 60 percent of the discarded computer equipment his
company receives can be refurbished and resold. "The export market is growing
for refurbished computers," he said.

The remainder is recycled, with the plastic, metal, glass and other material
separated and sold to various industries. Some businesses and consumers are
taking the easy way out by not doing anything at all, Mr. Delia said. He
estimates that 1 in 10 old computers is sitting in a garage or storeroom
awaiting a decision that often takes an owner several years to make. For many
companies, the problem is protecting confidential information. "People are
really concerned about their data, so they tend to sit on their old stuff," Mr.
Delia said.

That means that individuals and companies often hold on to obsolete equipment
until it is too old to be valuable to another user, Mr. Delia said. "The sooner
you're done with it, get it out," he said. "The asset value goes down every
month."

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3107

GREEN LIVING: CONSUMER NEWS
Biodiesel Basics
How to Run Your Car on Used Salad Oil
by Erica Gies

For financial, political and environmental reasons-including the fact that we
may soon reach the peak of oil production, after which fossil fuels will get
increasingly expensive-Americans are trying out biodiesel, both in their
vehicles and (mainly in the Northeast) for home heating.

Biodiesel emits 78 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than petroleum
diesel, according to the National Biodiesel Board, but it's not necessarily
squeaky green. According to Kathryn Phillips, manager of Environmental Defense's
California Clean Air for Life campaign, it actually increases nitrous oxide
(NOX) emissions, which react with other chemicals to create ground-level ozone,
or smog, significantly impacting lung development in children.

Illustration Omitted:
	  Triple biofuels dispenser at Baca Street Biofuels Stations  © NREL

However, Phillips adds that the biodiesel industry is working on methods to
reduce NOX via an additive or catalyst. NOX emissions result from the catalytic
conversion process and therefore aren't a problem when biodiesel is used for
home heating.

Another area of concern is that biodiesel is often made from genetically
engineered (GE) soybeans, and is a product of the industrial agriculture system
that results in topsoil loss and fertilizer runoff. Actress and biodiesel
advocate Daryl Hannah counsels caution about the developing industry, warning,
"It may encourage people to use more pesticides and GM crops. We shouldn't cut
off the nose to spite the face."

Without workarounds, biodiesel faces cold-weather issues since it becomes
unusably gelatinous as the temperature approaches freezing. Still, in spite of
its challenges, biodiesel is a far greener alternative than petroleum, according
to its advocates. "Particulate matter from diesel is a really bad pollutant and
a carcinogen," says Phillips. And in spite of its long-held reputation as being
a premium-cost fuel for elite environmentalists, after shortages caused by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita the price of biodiesel became quite competitive with
standard fuel oil for Northeastern homeowners with oil burners.

Take Action

If you want to use the alternative fuel to wean yourself off Big Oil, step one
is to buy a diesel car or truck, since gasoline vehicles can't burn biodiesel.
(However, Hannah points out that gasoline-powered cars can be converted to run
on alcohol/ethanol. She's put the TransAm from her film Kill Bill up on blocks
until she gets a chance to do the conversion.)

There are three basic fuels available to biodiesel drivers: B100 (pure,
processed biodiesel from retailers), B20 (a blend of 20 percent biodiesel and 80
percent regular petroleum diesel, also available from retailers), and fryer oil
("recycled" oil from restaurants that is not sold commercially).

B100 and B20 can be put directly into any diesel engine. If drivers are unable
to find biodiesel (or if it's too cold to use the higher blends), they can
simply switch to standard petroleum diesel. B20, because it is mostly diesel
fuel, can be used virtually year-round.

The best solution for using B100 in the winter is to use a heated filter or a
tank heater, both of which plumb the coolant system to heat the fuel to 180
degrees Fahrenheit. Once the engine is warmed, it alone can keep the biodiesel
at the proper viscosity. Robert Lewis, technical service specialist at fuel
filtration products company Racor, says his company sells these devices for $200
to $400. But, he adds, "You still need a second tank with diesel fuel for the
starting and shutting down sequence, because you don't want the oil to gel
inside the filter when it gets cold."

Lewis says he gets the most calls from customers who want to run their vehicles
on straight used vegetable oil, also known as SVO. For people willing to mix
petroleum with their biodiesel, engine gizmos aren't necessary. Instead, you can
mix your fuel in different concentrations throughout the year, as biodiesel
advocate Charris Ford did when he lived in Telluride, Colorado. He used 50
percent petroleum diesel in the winter and 25 percent in the spring and fall,
running 100 percent biodiesel only in the summer.

Blended biodiesel fuels sold commercially can be made from recycled oil, the
most environmentally friendly option. Using recycled oil consumes a waste
product, which boosts its carbon neutrality. But John DeCicco, a senior fellow
at Environmental Defense, points out that virgin biodiesel is not necessarily
"carbon neutral" as advertised. That claim comes from the fact that the plants
grown to make the fuel absorb CO2 as they grow, offsetting the exhaust produced
when burned.

"Did you fertilize that plant?" asks DeCicco. "Did you till the field? Did you
truck it somewhere? Where did that energy come from? There's a lot of
bookkeeping that has to be done to figure out whether a specific batch of
biodiesel is actually carbon neutral."

Jorah Roussopoulos, co-owner with his partner Andi Rubalcaba of the first
solar-powered biodiesel pump in the country in Ben Lomond, California,
understands this implicitly. It's for that reason he stocks recycled B100 at his
store whenever he can get it.

Other biodiesel drivers want the freedom to drive up to a restaurant's grease
pit, filter the used fryer oil, and put it directly in their tanks. Worried
about the supply? There is an estimated 4.5 billion gallons of used vegetable
oil generated every year, according to passionate advocate (and country singer)
Willie Nelson. For that capability, you need a conversion kit.
Massachusetts-based Greasecar sells one that includes a special biofuel tank,
filters, heat exchangers and plumbing. A turn-key conversion costs $1,500, but
if you're mechanically inclined, you can install it yourself for $795.
Missouri-based Greasel also makes a kit.

Before you run out and buy that brand-new, diesel-powered VW Passat, you might
want to consider warranty issues. Volkswagen currently only approves the use of
B5, according to spokesperson Patrick Hespen. (Further, VW diesels are not
currently sold in some states because they fail to comply with strict California
emission regulations.) General Motors offers only one diesel vehicle in North
America, the Duramax 6.6 liter V-8 turbo, and it too only approves the use of
B5.

There are only 200 or so biodiesel stations in the country, according to Greg
Pahl, author of Biodiesel: Growing a New Energy Economy. So enthusiasts in some
communities are forming cooperatives to get their fixes. Still, the stuff isn't
cheap, often selling for a dollar or so more than unleaded gas. Roussopoulos
sells his B100 for $3.65 a gallon, a price at which he says he's losing money.
"The whole idea right now is to raise awareness," he says. "Somebody has to do
it."

Heating Oil Too

Some homeowners in the Northeast are getting biodiesel blended into their home
furnace mixes whether they asked for it or not. Oil companies in Connecticut,
for instance, are assuring customers that this exotic new fuel won't damage
their boilers. Devine Brothers, a veteran home heating specialist in Norwalk,
Connecticut, has taken out billboards, trumpeting the virtues of blended
biodiesel, which in a two-year test administered in the Warwick, Rhode Island
school system performed better than conventional heating oil in both burner
efficiency and emissions.

Customers of Santa Fuel, also Connecticut based, are getting a five percent
biodiesel blend at no extra charge. "This is something we believe in as a
company," says general manager Peter Russell. "It's a renewable product that is
good for the environment. Five percent is not a lot, but it's a great start."

The Central Connecticut Biodiesel Consumer Cooperative, helmed by mechanical
engineer Karl W. Radune, is working to convince consumers that B100 won't harm
their furnaces. Some experts are concerned that B100 will erode the rubber seals
in furnace pumps, but Radune says a few dollars worth of Teflon replacements
will sidestep the problem.

Environmental concerns, coupled with high fuel-oil prices, are making biodiesel
more popular for various uses. Biodiesel production is up markedly across the
country, from 18 million gallons in 2002 to 30 million gallons in 2004,
according to the National Biodiesel Board.

Soybean oil is the most popular for biodiesel, but canola works well and people
are experimenting with other sources. France has distilled excess wine into
fuel. A professor at the University of Illinois planted a field trial of a grass
called Miscanthus that grows 14 feet tall and has been bred to be sterile, so it
won't go haywire as an invasive species. Roussopoulos mentions certain algaes
that produce as much as 50 percent oil and can grow in brackish sewage ponds.

Many options are not yet in play that could further reduce our carbon footprint,
but biodiesel pioneers aren't waiting. They're driving down that black ribbon of
highway, French fry fumes floating in their wake.


ERICA GIES is a San Francisco-based freelance writer.

CONTACTS

Greasel
Phone: (866)473-2735
 	 http://www.greasel.com/

Greasecar
Phone: (413) 529-0013
 	 http://www.greasecar.com/

National Biodiesel Board
Phone: (800) 841-5849
 	 http://www.biodiesel.org/

E/The Environmental Magazine. Copyright 1995 - 2004. All Rights Reserved.

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

>Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:33:19 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Global Footprint Network <conference@...>
>Subject: Footprint Forum 2006 - Registration Now Open
>Reply-to: conference@...
>
>Footprint Forum 2006: Learn, Share, Connect
>
>Dear Friends of Global Footprint Network,
>
>We are pleased to announce that registration for Footprint Forum 2006 is now
open! Please join us for this world-wide gathering of sustainability leaders and
Ecological Footprint practitioners in beautiful Siena, Italy! This year’s forum
will be held on Friday, June 16 and Saturday June 17, 2006.
>
>Visit the Footprint Forum
<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=j6wykubab.0.gvr5kubab.glnu67n6.40500&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww\
.footprintforum.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fdisplay.cgi%3Fpage%3Dtraining>website, to
register for the Introductory Footprint Training on Saturday, June 17. In
addition, you can find out more information about the free, public conference on
Friday, June 16. The conference is open to the general public and there is no
need to pre-register.
>
>This will be a unique opportunity to hear from first-rate speakers, network
with your fellow Footprint practitioners, and be inspired!
>
>The Public Conference – Friday, June 16
>The public conference will be packed with outstanding speakers, including:
Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director of the European Environment Agency; Rt
Hon Simon Upton, Chair of the OECD Roundtable on Sustainable Development; Mick
Bourke, Chair of EPA Victoria; Enzo Tiezzi, University of Siena, and more.
>
>Both before and after the conference speeches you can browse the exhibition
area, speak with Footprint practitioners, and learn more about Global Footprint
Network Partners’ work. Then stay to learn more about the Ecological Footprint
at a free Footprint 101 lesson with Mathis Wackernagel, Ph.D.
>
>The Ecological Footprint Training - Saturday, June 17
>The day-long Ecological Footprint Training will be a unique event – not only
will you gain a deeper understanding of Ecological Footprint methodology and
applications, but you will be trained by leading footprint practitioners from
across the globe. Mathis Wackernagel, Ph.D., co-creator of the Ecological
Footprint, will lead a morning session detailing Footprint history and
methodology. Then, some of the most active and successful users of Ecological
Footprint Accounting in the world will be leading afternoon sessions on how the
Ecological Footprint has made a difference in government policy, communities,
schools, and businesses. This gathering of Footprint experts to train the next
generation of practitioners is unprecedented; this event should not be missed!
>
>We hope you will join us for this extraordinary opportunity. For additional
information on speakers, trainings, and general conference details, please visit
the conference website,
<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=j6wykubab.0.raryptbab.glnu67n6.40500&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww\
.footprintforum.org>www.footprintforum.org.
>
>All our best,
>Global Footprint Network Staff
>University of Siena Staff
>
>P.S. If you have any questions, please contact our conference coordinator:
Carrie Wynkoop,
<mailto:conference@...>conference@...
>
>
>
>
><http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1011361658214&ea=vasishth%40usc.ed\
u&a=1101267753897>Forward email
>
><http://ui.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&m=1011361658214&ea=vasishth%40usc.edu\
&t=1101267753897%E2%8C%A9=en&reason=F>
>
>This email was sent to vasishth@..., by
<mailto:conference@...>conference@...
><http://ui.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=oo&m=1011361658214&ea=vasishth%40usc.edu\
&t=1101267753897%E2%8C%A9=en&reason=F>Update Profile/Email Address | Instant
removal with
<http://ui.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&m=1011361658214&ea=vasishth%40usc.edu&\
t=1101267753897%E2%8C%A9=en&reason=F>SafeUnsubscribe� |
<http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp>Privacy Policy.
>Powered by
><http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=custom01>
>Global Footprint Network | 3270 Lakeshore Avenue | Oakland | CA | 94610

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12535.htm

The Future of Food

There is a revolution happening in the farm fields and on the dinner tables of
America -- a revolution that is ...  transforming the very nature of the food we
eat. THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing
truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have
quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.

From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this
film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively
impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies
and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are
alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.
Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the
complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge
multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film
also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing
organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today

http://www.climatebiz.com/sections/news_detail.cfm?NewsID=30756

Fuel: Consider the Alternatives
Source: E/The Environmental Magazine
      Are hydrogen, ethanol or electricity on track to replace fossil fuels?
Major challenges remain. By Jim Motavalli

Hydrogen

Fuel-cell vehicles run on hydrogen gas, the most abundant element in the
universe. The fuel cell, which chemically converts hydrogen to electricity (with
water as a byproduct), has the potential to eventually replace the
internal-combustion engine, because it's far more than just the best
environmental choice. The reason the auto industry is spending billions of
dollars on fuel cells is because it sees the potential for a much better car
than internal combustion can deliver, with improved performance, fuel economy,
range and emissions, too.

The most optimistic predictions see us driving fuel-cell cars by 2015 or 2020,
though skeptics such as Joseph Romm, author of The Hype About Hydrogen (Island
Press), think it might take longer. General Motors has said it will have a
production-ready fuel-cell vehicle in place by 2010. Honda is a significant
contender in the fuel-cell race, and has made the most progress with cold
starting and general drivability. Honda has lent its FCX fuel-cell vehicles to
journalists and to average drivers as part of a testing program. The next
generation of the FCX will reportedly have a 340-mile range.

Environmentalists such as Amory Lovins, head of the Rocky Mountain Institute,
have long predicted that the world will eventually have a hydrogen energy
economy, but in recent years the chorus has grown to include many people at high
levels of government and industry. A hydrogen economy will abandon
internal-combustion engines completely, and it will also eventually replace the
electric grid to your house, and even your flashlight and computer batteries.

Ethanol

The supply of corn-derived ethanol, also known as ethyl alcohol or grain
alcohol, is increasing rapidly, from 2.1 billion gallons in 2002 to 3.4 billion
gallons in 2004. In early 2005, there were 81 ethanol plants in 20 states, with
an additional 16 under construction. Ethanol is used both as an alternative fuel
and as an octane-boosting, pollution-reducing additive to gasoline.

Traditional ethanol production from corn has not had a stellar track record.
Congress routinely awards large subsidies and tax breaks for ethanol production,
but its interest seems more to appease farm state voters and agribusiness than
to provide an alternative to imported oil. Most "bi-fuel" vehicles equipped to
run on ethanol (and receiving tax credits to do so) usually run on gasoline
because ethanol infrastructure is lacking. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)
describes the energy bill provision requiring ethanol content in gasoline
"nothing less than an ethanol tax levied on every driver" and a "boondoggle."

The U.S. is a major corn producer, so could corn-based ethanol take over from
gasoline as the mainline fuel for transportation? Hardly. Cornell economist
David Pimentel says we'd have to devote nearly all our farmland to the cause if
we wanted to produce enough grain-based ethanol to power the economy. And corn
ethanol is notoriously energy-intensive to produce, though the American
Coalition for Ethanol denounces as "outrageous" the accusation that it actually
has a negative energy balance.

Some environmentalists champion so-called cellulosic ethanol, which could be
made from agricultural, municipal and forestry waste, including corn stalks,
sawdust or waste paper. "Not quite lead into gold, but maybe more valuable for
the U.S. economy, for cutting air pollution, and for reducing dependence on
foreign oil," says the Department of Energy.

Technical breakthroughs have made large-scale cellulosic ethanol production
feasible at a reported 60 to 80 cents per gallon. According to Washington
Monthly, "An estimate by the consulting firm Burrill Company [predicts that] if
the waste products of all American farms were converted into cellulosic ethanol
(a long-term, best-case scenario to be sure) it would provide 25% of all the
energy needed to run our transportation system -- about the same percentage
which we import today from Venezuela and the Persian Gulf combined."

Focusing on the "feedstock," or raw material, may be missing the point, says
Sarah Hessenflow Harper, a national security and climate security analyst at
Environmental Defense. Harper says what we need are energy-efficiency and
low-carbon standards that any bio-fuel would have to meet to win certification
(like the organic standards for agriculture). "The current market assigns no
value to reducing carbon," she says, "so there's no incentive to develop an
energy-efficient version of ethanol. If we send the right market signal, then
technological development will evolve to meet the new standard."

Electric Vehicles

There are currently no generally available battery-powered cars on the U.S.
market, and any electric vehicle (EV) enthusiast will eventually be forced to
admit that 90-mile cruising ranges have failed to convince most Americans to
sign up to plug in. It's the batteries, stupid. Today, some EV supporters have
turned to the so-called plug-in hybrid (a Toyota Prius with an extra battery
pack) as a workable compromise.

According to Dontcrush.com, which led a successful campaign to stop Toyota from,
yes, crushing its fleet of 1,000 battery-powered RAV4 EVs, "The cost of plugging
in to the grid and charging up at home is the equivalent of pennies per gallon
on the average electric bill as compared to $3-plus a gallon at the pump
todayŠ.With a plug-in hybrid, which uses a battery-powered electric motor for
the first 30 to 50 miles, most American commuters would rarely if ever need to
fill up or even top off with gasoline unless making a long trip. Since 50% of
Americans do not drive more than 20 miles per day, the electric range of a
plug-in hybrid would power nearly all of our daily driving."

But pure battery cars face challenges. On the ground, nickel-metal-hydride
(NiMH) batteries of the type seen in hybrid vehicles are still expensive and in
short supply. Many EV models still rely on heavy and inefficient lead-acid
batteries. Lithium-ion (Li-Ion) batteries show great promise and, combined with
a lightweight composite body shell, could presumably give EVs a 300-mile-plus
range. But very few have been seen in vehicles yet.

The EVs that are on the market are low-volume and highly specialized. One
example of the latter is the Tango, an odd-looking (very narrow) electric hot
rod capable of reaching 60 mph in four seconds (but with a range of only 80
miles). Actor George Clooney has a Tango, but they seem a long way from
cost-effective commuter transportation.

MIT battery researcher Donald Sadoway thinks that the performance of Li-ion
batteries can be greatly improved using solid-state technology (no liquid). His
concept uses multilayered thin-film laminates. "You're looking at something
that's similar to a potato chip bag: a polymer web coated with a different layer
of chemistry," he says. "We can make that by the square mile -- it's not
difficult to do. We're talking about a doubling or tripling of the capacity of
today's batteries."

A battery breakthrough would make all the difference. Until then, EVs are likely
to remain in limbo.

---------
This article has been reprinted courtesy of E/The Environmental Magazine. It
first appeared in the January-February 2006 issue of that publication.

© Copyright Business for Social Responsibility and The National Environmental
Education & Training Foundation

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

["The (US) national recycling rate is now in the low 20 percent range, down from
its peak of around 25 percent in the mid-1990s, and sharply lower than rates of
around 60 percent in Germany and Scandinavia."]

  * * *

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/06/paid.recycling.reut/index.html

Philadelphia discovers it pays to recycle
      Nonprofit group offers coupons to encourage participation

Thursday, April 6, 2006; Posted: 4:52 p.m. EDT (20:52 GMT)

Illustration Omitted:
	  The national recycling rate is in the low 20-percent range, down from a peak
of about 25 percent in the mid-1990s.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (Reuters) -- When you can't get people to recycle
trash by appealing to their environmental conscience, there's a simple solution
that seems to work: pay them.

That's the strategy taken by RecycleBank, a pioneering Philadelphia-based
nonprofit group that gives households coupons to spend at local businesses in
return for separating their recyclables from the stuff that really needs to go
in the landfill.

The result has been a dramatic increase in recycling rates, and that success has
led to its expansion into New Jersey, Delaware and several New England states,
and has prompted inquiries from Europe, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

"This is the most exciting thing that's come along for the last 15 or 20 years"
in recycling, said Christine Knapp of the environmental advocacy group Citizens
for Pennsylvania's Future.

RecycleBank has been operating in two Philadelphia neighborhoods and some areas
of suburban Philadelphia, covering about 5,000 homes, since January 2005,
improving one of the nation's worst recycling records.

The program attracts users by allowing people to accumulate all their glass,
plastic, aluminum, cardboard and newspaper in just one container rather than
requiring separate bins. The single recycle bin is emptied by the local trash
hauler.

In Chestnut Hill, an upscale Philadelphia neighborhood, the proportion of
recyclable waste actually being recycled has jumped to 50 percent from less than
10 percent since the program began, said Ron Gonen, co-founder of RecycleBank.

More than 90 percent of households in the pilot-program neighborhood now
recycle, up from less than 25 percent at the beginning of 2005.

Participating households earn "RecycleBank Dollars" which are accumulated
according to the weight of recycled trash.

The "dollars," up to $400 a year per household, are donated by about 150 local
businesses, which seek to generate goodwill with shoppers and entice them with
discounts of 10 or 20 percent.

"It's the most brilliant idea," said Ellen Hass, a Chestnut Hill resident.
"Fifty percent of everything is recycled because it can be recycled."

Addressing 'inefficiencies'

The city of Philadelphia benefits from the reduced amount of trash it must
dispose of, and it pays half of the savings to RecycleBank.

Even so, Philadelphia still has the second-lowest recycling rate, at about 5
percent, among U.S. cities with more than 1 million people.

Gonen says Philadelphia could cut its trash-disposal bill by at least $17
million a year if it met its own recycling goal of 35 percent

But the city disputes that savings figure and has resisted taking RecycleBank
citywide because it says the program would add to the city's costs by $12
million to $18 million a year.

The city is in talks with RecycleBank to extend the program to an additional
7,600 households so that RecycleBank can show it can overcome "operational
inefficiencies," said Carlton Williams, deputy commissioner of the Streets
Department.

The national recycling rate is now in the low 20 percent range, down from its
peak of around 25 percent in the mid-1990s, and sharply lower than rates of
around 60 percent in Germany and Scandinavia.

RecycleBank has prompted a number of other eastern cities to sign up. In New
England, about 100,000 homes will begin dumping recyclables in RecycleBank
containers this fall in a partnership with Casella Waste Systems, a
waste-management company based in Rutland, Vermont.

"This is one of the most innovative programs to enhance recycling that we've
seen in a long time," said chief executive John Casella, whose employees will
collect the recyclables and sort them for sale to various markets.

The partnership makes business sense for Casella because it will boost the
volume of materials processed by the company's recycling plants, and because it
can make more money by selling recyclable materials, many of which are currently
in strong demand, Casella said.

He expects the recycling rate among participants will rise to around 30 percent
from the current 10 percent because people will be able to put all their
materials in one container.


Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.

  * * *

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/2006-04-04-09.asp#anchor5

Recycling Pays Off for 200 Pennsylvania Communities

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania, April 4, 2006 (ENS) - Pennsylvania has awarded $3.6
million in recycling performance grants to 200 communities for their recycling
efforts in 2004.

"Pennsylvania is a national leader in recycling, and we will continue to support
the community efforts and innovations that make that possible," said Governor
Edward Rendell, announcing the awards on Monday.

"Recycling programs across the commonwealth are helping to keep our environment
clean and provide a growing source of raw materials for manufacturers across the
state," Governor Rendell said.

"The simple act of separating recyclable materials from trash, repeated in
millions of Pennsylvania homes and businesses, has a profound impact on our
environment and our economy," he said.

Governor Rendell noted an innovative contracting practice some of the
performance grant recipients in Chester County are using to increase the
financial sustainability of their local recycling programs. Upper Uwchlan,
Uwchlan and West Bradford townships, along with eight other Chester County
municipalities, are participating in the Chester County Solid Waste Authority's
processing and marketing contract.

The contract enables the municipalities to be paid for the recyclable materials
collected from their residents, based on an index of current recycled commodity
prices.

"Through innovations such as Chester County's revenue-sharing contracts, and
through technology and processing improvements spurred by commonwealth
investments, Pennsylvania will continue to be a national leader with a recycling
industry that helps to drive our economy," the governor said.

By the numbers, Pennsylvania's recycling industry is big. More than 3,247
recycling and reuse businesses and organizations generate more than $18.4
billion in gross annual sales and provide jobs for more than 81,322 employees at
an annual payroll of approximately $2.9 billion.

These businesses add more than $305 million in taxes to the state treasury.

In 2004, nearly 4.8 million tons of waste was recovered in Pennsylvania. The
economic value of remaking that waste into new and useful products exceeded $113
million.

Communities avoided more than $259 million in disposal costs based on the
estimated statewide average disposal cost of $54 per ton.

Pennsylvania's recyclers save energy, reduce air and water pollution, and limit
the need for virgin materials in manufacturing.

Recycling reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 2.1 million metric
tons of carbon equivalents per year - equal to six percent of all industrial
carbon equivalent emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the state and 2.6
percent of its greenhouse gas emissions.

The state's recycling programs are supported by a $2 tipping fee on each ton of
waste deposited in Pennsylvania landfills. But the fee runs only through 2008.
Governor Rendell is working with the Legislature to extend that deadline.


Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights Reserved.

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060405/NEWS06/604050384/\
-1/NEWS

Article published Wednesday, April 5, 2006

GREAT LAKES SUMMIT
Energy answer may be blowing in the wind
Meeting explores lake turbine viability

By TOM HENRY
BLADE STAFF WRITER

A year ago, the idea of putting wind turbines out in the open waters of Lake
Erie to generate electricity seemed like just another item on a renewable energy
buff's wish list.

Today, there are signs of momentum building.

The latest was an all-day summit yesterday at the Wyndham Hotel in downtown
Toledo, the first of its kind that the U.S. Department of Energy has organized
for the Great Lakes region. About 200 people - many of them state and federal
employees - came together to exchange research into the viability of offshore
wind power in the lakes.

The event came seven months after a nonprofit group, Green Energy Ohio,
completed the installation of Lake Erie's biggest data-gathering wind tower. The
6,000-pound tower, which stands 165 feet above Lake Erie's surface, is anchored
to Cleveland's water intake crib about 3.5 miles north of that city's shoreline.

"This is the beginning of the process of understanding the stakeholders, said
organizer Larry Flowers of the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and team leader of its National Wind Technology Center in Boulder,
Colo.

While there are no immediate plans to install offshore turbines in the Great
Lakes, "the potential is huge," said John Sarver, the Michigan Energy Office's
superintendent of technical assistance. "I think eventually there will be wind
turbines in the lakes."

This morning, several public officials are expected to begin a new Great Lakes
networking group to keep states abreast on offshore wind technology and market
issues, Mr. Flowers said.

The collaboration is being promoted by the Energy Department under its Wind
Powering America initiative, which strives to have the nation get 20 percent of
its electricity from wind someday.

Wind is the fastest-growing energy source, but accounts for less than 1 percent
of the U.S. energy generation. By 2020, its market share is expected to be 6
percent, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The GAO in September issued a report that said wind power generally doesn't seem
to harm wildlife as much as people think, if the turbines are sited properly.
However, the report cited problems with the Altamont Pass project in northern
California that was built in the 1980s in a bird flyway and has poorly designed
turbines. It has been blamed for the deaths of thousands of hawks, golden
eagles, and raptors.

The same report also cited concerns about wind turbines in West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and other Appalachian Mountain locations killing thousands of
bats.

Joe Perlaky, a Green Energy Ohio board member and a University of Toledo project
manager for alternative energy issues, said Toledo was chosen for yesterday's
Great Lakes summit because it's where wind and wildlife issues collide.

Western Lake Erie is in one of North America's biggest flyways. For that reason,
the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
have said they would fight any attempt to locate turbines in Lake Erie's western
basin.

U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) recently helped the Energy Department secure
a $200,000 grant to study wind and wildlife issues between the Maumee River and
Sandusky Bay, Mr. Perlaky said.

The Great Lakes region will draw upon experiences in other parts of the country
- and the world - if offshore wind turbines are pursued. Offshore wind is
booming in parts of Europe.

Yesterday's speakers included a Danish biologist, Charlotte Boesen, who is
employed by that country's ENERGI E2 electrical utility. She told The Blade that
Denmark installed about 80 turbines in the Baltic Sea in 2003, but estimates
fewer than 1 percent of that area's birds ever get close enough to be at risk of
colliding with the devices.

"What we see is the birds flying around the wind farm," she said.

The Baltic occasionally freezes because it is more brackish than the Atlantic
Ocean. Denmark's turbines in the Baltic have withstood impacts from the ice -
something that turbines in the Great Lakes would have to be designed to do.

Anne Barker of the Canadian Hydraulics Centre, a federal agency in Canada that
studies ice, said the research is encouraging. But she said ice can affect lake
sediment turbines are anchored in, as well as the structures themselves.

Contact Tom Henry at:
thenry@...
or 419-724-6079.

© 2006 The Blade.

  * * *

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060405/BUSINESS06/604050444/10\
19

ALTERNATIVE POWER: Wonders of wind
      As natural gas prices increase, turbines gain popularity in Michigan

April 5, 2006
BY ALEJANDRO BODIPO-MEMBA
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER

Green power is not just another environmentally lofty goal for the Rev. Charles
Morris. It's a religious imperative.

The pastor of St. Elizabeth's Catholic Church in Wyandotte has been using a wind
turbine to provide electricity to his parish since 1997. As chairman of
nonprofit Michigan Interfaith Power and Light, Morris views the promotion of
renewable energy as a mission from a higher power.

"I saw this as a spiritual issue because I believe renewable power is a visible
sign of God's grace in the form of sacrament," he said. "If we wanted to make a
statement, then we had to walk the talk."

Wind power in Michigan is gaining popularity among residents and businesses as
the price of natural gas -- often used to generate electricity -- has more than
doubled in the last three years. Advocates for increased use of zero-emission
energy sources are building a major commercial wind turbine farm in Huron and
Sanilac counties in the next five years.

The multiphase project calls for 250 turbines to be spread over 40,000 acres at
a cost of $600 million. The first 32 are expected to be running by the end of
this year, according to Noble Environmental Power LLC, an Essex, Conn.-based
wind-generation developer, which is majority-owned by J.P. Morgan Partners.

"Wind is an indigenous state resource, and we're not taking advantage of it,"
said Peter Mastic, managing director of Noble Environmental and president of the
Michigan Sustainable Energy Coalition. "It is less expensive than new natural
gas or new coal and every gigawatt we produce from wind is renewable."

Michigan has three commercial wind turbines, one in Traverse City and two in
Mackinaw City.

The global wind market, about $11.8 billion in 2005, is expected to increase to
an estimated $48.5 billion by 2015, a study by Clean Edge Inc. shows. Last year,
private-sector investment in the energy technology industry was 4.2% of overall
U.S. venture capital expenditures.

The U.S. Department of Energy is shooting for a goal of 5% of the nation's
electricity produced by wind turbines by 2010.

Erecting modern commercial windmills is expected to generate 1,200 gigawatts of
power, or enough electricity to power 128,000 homes a year. There is also the
potential to add 8,500 to 10,000 jobs related to the manufacturing of the
turbines, a study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project in Washington, D.C.,
found.

Several Michigan cities are embarking on a variety of wind power projects that
would boost municipal goals for using renewable fuels like wind to as much as
30% of a city's total energy use by the year 2010.

Ann Arbor leaders are in discussions with Noble Environmental to purchase wind
power as part of a 20-year, fixed-price contract.

Wyandotte is considering building two or three commercial turbines on the
Detroit River.

Wind power is "absolutely more competitive in terms of price than it was a few
years ago," said David Konkle, energy coordinator for the City of Ann Arbor.
"The demand for wind power is huge, and we think we can invest in renewable
energy and it will be cheaper for us" in the long run.

Turbine tension

Not everyone is in favor of building hundreds of metallic turbines on Michigan
farmland.

Like the literary character "Don Quixote de La Mancha" created by Spanish author
Miguel de Cervantes in the 17th Century, some opponents view wind turbines as
"oppressive giants" that would disturb the aesthetic quality of communities and
lower property values around the state. Critics claim the electricity wind
turbines create is less reliable, because output is "intermittent and highly
volatile."

There are also concerns about the safety of birds that could fly in the paths of
the turbines.

Most wind turbines are 200 to 300 feet high with 100-foot blades rotating at
more than 100 miles per hour. Opponents call the construction of wind farms
nothing more than a tax scheme for large corporations.

National Wind Watch, a new nonprofit in Rowe, Mass., critical of the commercial
wind industry, recently said that a lot of the information about wind power is
"one-sided, and frequently misleading."

Other observers closer to home express caution about the role wind technology
should have in Michigan's energy portfolio.

"Historically, the problem with renewable energy has been that they were not
economically viable without substantial subsidies," said Roderick Coy, an energy
attorney with Clark Hill in Lansing. "Another troubling thing is government
mandates. Mandatory standards irrespective of cost are not a good idea. Prices
are almost certain to rise."

Nevertheless, wind energy is getting more popular in Michigan.

Pastor Morris has seen even more dramatic savings after switching his parish to
green power in 1997.

"We wanted a snapshot for our strategic plan, which is what began us on our
journey," he said.

"Over that time, we made some investments with our Southwest Airfoil 3 turbine
and solar panels, and we found that our peak energy demand was reduced by 60% in
five years. That translated to a $300-a-month reduction in the church's utility
bill."

Proponents of wind energy say the most likely way for that to happen is if
Michigan does what 22 other states have done and adopts a renewable energy
portfolio standard.

Renewable portfolio standards require states to generate a certain percentage of
their electricity from renewable sources every year.

"States that don't have a renewable energy portfolio standard tend not to get
many projects," said Mastic. "For Michigan to get more than the project in the
Thumb area, it is going to need a clear-path approach to compete with existing
resources."

Michigan companies in the mix

Some of the Michigan-based companies doing work in the wind technology field
include Mackinaw Wind Power in Mackinaw City, Alternative Power Supply in
Detroit and McKenzie Bay International in Birmingham.

Michigan's current electricity portfolio breaks down as follows: 56.7% coal,
26.4% nuclear, 13.4% natural gas, 2% from renewable sources and the rest from
other energy sources. Of the 2% of renewable sources, wind power makes up 0.01%
of Michigan's power.

While other states, such as Minnesota and Iowa, have achieved success in
increasing the use of renewable fuels through mandates, not everyone thinks laws
are the best way to incorporate green energy into Michigan's power portfolio.

"Our view is that voluntary private programs should be given an opportunity to
grow, mature and develop," said Daniel Bishop, a spokesman for Jackson-based CMS
Energy Corp.

CMS's Consumers Energy electrical utility is one of Michigan's leaders in the
use of renewable fuels to generate power.

Consumers Energy recently entered into electricity supply contracts with seven
independent renewable energy projects, including the Noble Environmental wind
farm project. The company's Green Generation Program gets 6% to 7% of its energy
from renewable energy sources.

"We think there is virtue in letting customers act on a voluntary nature in
terms of renewable energy," Bishop said. "We think it makes more economic sense
than a state-mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard, which could end up being
more expensive for the consumer."

But even Consumers Energy has seen more than 1,700 of its electricity customers
sign up for the Green Power program since September.

Julie Ann Paige, a self-proclaimed environmental activist in Jenison, signed up
as soon as she heard about the program.

"We wanted to put our money where our mouths were," the 25 year-old mother of
two said. "The more we can do with renewable energy, the better."


Contact ALEJANDRO BODIPO-MEMBA at 313-222-5008 or abodipo@....

Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/14271121.htm

Posted on Wed, Apr. 05, 2006

World's discarded computers land in China's digital scrap heap

BY TIM JOHNSON
Knight Ridder Newspapers

GUIYU, China - When discarded computers vanish from desktops around the world,
they often end up in Guiyu, which may be the electronic-waste capital of the
globe.

The city is a sprawling computer slaughterhouse. Instead of offal and blood, its
runoff includes toxic metals and acids. Some 60,000 laborers toil here at
primitive e-waste recycling - if it can be called that - even as the work
imperils their health.

Computer carcasses line the streets, awaiting dismemberment. Circuit boards and
hard drives lie in huge mounds. At thousands of workshops, laborers shred and
grind plastic casings into particles, snip cables and pry chips from circuit
boards. Workers pass the boards through red-hot kilns or acid baths to dissolve
lead, silver and other metals from the digital detritus. The acrid smell of
burning solder and melting plastic fills the air.

"I don't think this is recycling," said Wu Song, an environmental activist from
nearby Shantou University. "They ignore the environment."

What occurs is more akin to e-waste scavenging. Though China bans imports of
electronic waste, its factories clamor for raw materials, even those yanked from
the guts of discarded computers, and ill-informed workers seek out
computer-recycling jobs. So the ban is ignored, and the waste comes in torrents.
Under the guise of "recycling," U.S. e-waste brokers ship discarded computers
and dump an environmental problem on China.

In the United States, consumers, manufacturers and retailers are only beginning
to pay attention to the cost of safely ending the lives of electronics.

By next year, obsolete computers amassed in the United States will number 500
million, according to the U.S. National Safety Council.

"People just don't know what to do with them," said Jim Puckett, the coordinator
of the Basel Action Network, a Seattle-based group that advises consumers about
sustainable methods to dispose of e-waste.

Hewlett-Packard of Palo Alto, Calif., committed this year to eliminate a range
of hazardous chemicals from its products and has helped lobby for state laws
requiring manufacturers to take back old equipment.

Still, a lot of e-waste from the United States continues to seep into China and
West Africa, where corruption is large and smuggling rampant.

The U.S. government doesn't ban, or even monitor, e-waste exports.

What's more, the Environmental Protection Agency has no certification process
for electronic-waste recyclers. Any company can claim it recycles waste, even if
all it does is export it.

Guiyu (pronounced GWAY-yoo), a few hours' drive northeast of Hong Kong, is by
far China's biggest e-waste scrap heap. The city comprises 21 villages with
5,500 family workshops handling e-waste. According to the local government Web
site, city businesses process 1.5 million tons of e-waste a year, pulling in $75
million in revenue. As much as 80 percent of it comes from overseas.

City officials are proud of the e-waste industry but sensitive about its
reputation as a dirty business that feeds off smuggled waste and abuses labor
rights. Journalists who probe quickly find themselves detained by local thugs or
police officers, and their digital photographs or video footage erased.

One recent visitor was stopped within two hours of arriving and ordered to
leave.

"They don't want the media ... to write articles about the negative aspect of
the Guiyu area," Wu said. "(They think) maybe the central government will punish
them."

Local bosses pay little regard to workers' health or regulations that prohibit
dumping acid baths into rivers and venting toxic fumes.

In one district of Guiyu, a migrant worker stood amid piles of capacitors and
small circuit boards as fellow workers with pliers tore off soldered metal parts
and burned electronic components over braziers to determine their content.

"If you burn it, you can tell what kind of plastic it is," said the man, who
gave only his surname, Wang. "They smell different. There are many kinds of
plastic, probably 60 or 70 types."

Six of Guiyu's villages specialize in circuit board disassembly, seven in
plastics and metals reprocessing, and two in wire and cable disassembly.

An average computer yields only $1.50 to $2 worth of commodities such as
shredded plastic, copper and aluminum, according to a report in November by the
Government Accountability Office, a watchdog arm of Congress.

E-waste recyclers in the United States can't cover their costs with such low
yields, especially while respecting environmental regulations. So they charge an
average of 50 cents a pound for taking in old computers, about $20 to $28 per
unit. At that price, experts say, recycling can be done safely and profitably.

But some U.S. brokers then ship the e-waste abroad for greater profits.

"Up to 80 percent of all obsolete electronics that gets collected ends up
getting exported," said Ted Smith, the founder of the Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition and a director of the national Computer Take Back Campaign, which
advocates safe domestic recycling of discarded electronics and directs consumers
to recyclers that pledge to use environmental best practices and not to export
e-waste. The flow of U.S. e-waste abroad "is not diminishing," he said. "If
anything, it is increasing."

Policymakers in Beijing are unhappy about the flow, and blame the exporting
countries as much as local dealers and officials in Guiyu and Taizhou, another
Chinese e-waste hub.

"The biggest responsibility lies in the developed countries that export
e-waste," said Zhang Tianzhu, a professor in the school of environmental
engineering at Tsinghua University in Beijing. Zhang, who's advising experts who
are drafting a national law on recycling businesses, said China's central
government wanted environmentally safe procedures, but "existing e-waste
businesses are so large that they are major sources of revenue for local
residents and the local government."

Taxes on e-waste businesses provide Guiyu with 90 percent of its commercial and
industrial taxes, making officials reluctant to regulate them at all.

The environmental group Greenpeace sampled dust, soil, river sediment and
groundwater a year ago in Guiyu and at a site in India where e-waste recycling
occurs and found soaring levels of toxic heavy metals and organic contaminants
in both places.

The group found "over 10 poisonous metals, such as lead, mercury and cadmium, in
Guiyu town," said Lai Yun, a campaigner for the group.

When the workers shatter the circuit boards into powder, they rinse it away with
water, said Wu, the environmental activist. "And the water goes into the
rivers," Wu said. "They also use acid baths to dissolve metals on the boards.
The acid is also released into the rivers."

Toxicity is only one reason that recycling electronics is costly in the United
States. Another is poor design. U.S. manufacturers haven't made products to
facilitate disassembly. The GAO report found that $1 more in design costs per
computer could save $4 for American recyclers in disassembly costs. Nor have
manufacturers gone very far in finding "green" materials to replace toxic flame
retardants.

The computers that large U.S. institutions and businesses use have a life span
of about three years. Old computers are auctioned off to brokers.

"When you're a cash-strapped school system, you're going to go to the lowest
bidder," said Puckett of the Basel Action Network. "The lowest bidders are the
ones who are going to export."

Many of the discards end up in Guiyu, where workers who earn about $100 a month
sort, disassemble, smash, burn and melt them down.

Even if e-waste imports dried up, Guiyu's recycling wouldn't go out of business.
China is generating more of its own e-waste.

Last year, vendors sold 20 million computers in China. Within two years, the
country will be buying 30 million computers a year, according to a research firm
that's associated with the Ministry of Information Industry.

---

For information online about responsible e-waste recycling in the United States:

Computer Take Back Campaign: www.computertakeback.com

Basel Action Network: www.ban.org/pledge/Locations.html

---

© 2006, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

Knight Ridder special correspondent Fan Linjun contributed to this report.

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/athome/265673_builtgreen08.html

Saturday, April 8, 2006

Local builders and buyers going 'green' with gusto

By GORDY HOLT
P-I REPORTER

Back in 1998, scientists at California's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
came to a stunning conclusion: Duct tape might be fine for taping roommates to
their bedsteads, but it can't be trusted to seal home-heating ducts.

According to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the study showed that
11 kinds of duct tape not only "failed reliably" but "often quite
catastrophically." (Leave it to a government agency to give us the phrase
"failed reliably.")

Illustration Omitted:
	  This Greenleaf Construction project in Seattle's Judson Park neighborhood is
using a mix of almost 40 percent reclaimed lumber along with engineered and
sustainably produced building materials. Andrew Buchanan /

The discovery grew from the need to find better ways of building
energy-efficient homes in an era of threatened energy supplies and increasing
costs.

Duct-tape usage is not generally disclosed in real-estate contracts, but
wouldn't it be nice to know if your builder applied it -- or instead chose a
sticky, white stuff called mastic that's preferred by the Master Builders'
"Built Green" program?

The choice could determine whether your furnace is squirting heat into your
living spaces -- or under the house.

Using goop to seal residential heating systems is just one among dozens of
better-building options available to homebuilders seeking to hang a "Built
Green" tag on their dwellings. Their choices will determine how gentle the
project will be on the environment as well as on the pocketbook.

"Built Green" became a rallying cry for the Master Builders Association of King
and Snohomish Counties in 1999, the year that nine struggling Northwest salmon
species were listed as threatened or endangered.

With stiff, new environmental regulations on the way, association leaders
created the program as a non-profit arm and charged it with changing builder
habits.

Thor Peterson, a sustainable-building specialist in Seattle's Department of
Planning and Development, is encouraged by what he sees as a growing interest in
the concepts. (Peterson provides the weekly "Living Green" tip for
seattle@home.)

He said he was "heartened" to see 500 people register for a recent Built Green
conference in Seattle, compared with only 600 who showed up at a national
conference in Albuquerque, N.M., a few days earlier.

"I think that shows we're making great progress here in the Northwest," he said.

Seattle builder Jim Barger began his build-green dream about three years ago.

Illustration Omitted:
	 50-year metal roofs are a hallmark of Built Green homes. Andrew Buchanan /

"Then we got to the point where, once we'd started, we had no choice but to
continue," he said. "It makes so much sense. Houses feel so much better. And if
you have any kind of conscience, you can't go back."

Among the program's certification options chosen by Barger's Greenleaf
Construction company for recent projects are: beefed-up insulation levels,
tankless water heaters, fluorescent lighting, lots of pre-used materials
(plywood, timbers and studs) and 50-year metal roofs.

In addition, he now follows the example of green pioneer Martha Rose, the
Ballard-based builder-developer: Barger prepares a home's electrical system so
that, at some future time, the power of solar energy can be tapped without a
costly retrofit.

For Built Green bragging rights, Barger pays $150 in yearly dues and $50 to
register each house.

But that's not all.

"We have to go through an introductory training program to learn about the
checklist of options and how to use it, and once a year someone from your
company is required to attend a Built Green seminar," he explained.

It has been a long haul getting to this point, said Aaron Adelstein, Built
Green's director since November.

"Until now there hasn't been a compelling reason for builders to change their
business paradigm," he said. "Most of them figured they had a business model
that worked in what has always been a highly competitive industry.

"But now consumers are quite savvy, especially the consumers in this area, and
builders are seeing that they need to change in response."

Even some of the region's biggest builders are participating, if not yet with
the fervor of the early revolutionaries. Among them, Adelstein said, are
Bennett, Buchan, Burnstead and Quadrant.

Illustration Omitted:
	 All unused materials and scrap go into the recycling bin, not the trash. Andrew
Buchanan /

Moreover, since last year, Port Blakely Communities requires all builders to
pass third-party tested Built Green standards if they wish to build in Blakely's
Issaquah Highlands development.

At its inception, critics claimed Built Green was more marketing than meat. And
then something extraordinary happened.

In 2002, environmental groups not known to cuddle the industry sat down with it
to help expand its list of certification options, and by 2004 Built Green had
its meat.

Its one-, two- and three-star construction levels heralded increased energy
efficiency. However, there was no way for a buyer to know if a builder had
cheated.

That's now changed. With the addition of four- and five-star levels to the Built
Green constellation, third-party verification of a builder's claims is required.

Among the groups at the table as these issues were hammered out was Futurewise,
an environmental watchdog previously known as 1,000 Friends of Washington.

"And we were all listened to," said Tim Trohimovich, its growth-management
specialist.

The upshot, he said, is that Built Green fattened into a program that addresses
energy issues as well as matters affecting salmon and the environment.

"That means," Trohimovich said, "that people can be confident that when they buy
or rent a Built Green home they'll be getting one in a decent location that's
potentially healthier than other homes. It'll be a home that should take less
energy to operate over the long term, and a home that's better overall for
society -- and personally for those who live there."

The benefits should be obvious at the end of every month, said Tom Balderston,
builder-outreach specialist with Energy Star Homes Northwest, a
utility-and-government backed non-profit aimed at promoting energy-efficiency in
the home-building industry.

Illustration Omitted:
	 The Built Green logo. Andrew Buchanan /

Balderston said Built Green options coupled with high-efficiency appliances that
carry the EPA's Energy Star sticker, add no more than $1,700 to the cost of a
2,200-square-foot home built today in Seattle. The calculation shows a five-year
gain to the homeowner of $1,008, and includes a mortgage-payment increase of
just $7 a month to pay for the upgrades.

Lower energy bills make the difference.

"The question I love to ask," he said, "is, 'Wouldn't you like to do something
for the environment and do a deal that earned you an extra $17 a month for every
month you own the house?' "

Andrea Orive and Jan Mortola are sold on Built Green. Their move from an
apartment to a compact, two-story Built Green home in the Central District has
been well worth the investment, they say. And with the tankless water heater
that came with the place, they claim to be saving 20 percent on hot water alone.

Illustration Omitted:
	 Tubing for the low-maintenance radiant heating system. Andrew Buchanan /

BUILT GREEN EXAMPLES


Site and water management: Use compost to stabilize disturbed slopes. Use
pervious materials for at least one-third of areas occupied by driveways,
walkways and patios. Use a water management system that allows groundwater
recharge. Energy efficiency: Use airtight building methods. Get a blower-door
test to check for leaks. Orient windows to gain solar heat. Install bathroom-fan
timers. Install a fresh-air ventilator that includes an air-to-air heat recovery
system. Bonus points for installing a solar water heater or for powering more
than 2 percent of the house with solar-electric panels.

Health and indoor air quality: Use non-toxic paints and carpeting and
formaldehyde-free building materials. Install a central vacuum system. Clean
ducts and furnace before buyers move in, or install a ductless heating system.
Materials efficiency: Sell or give away wood scraps; don't send them to a
landfill. Recycle all unused materials and scrap. Use materials produced
locally. Use salvaged doors, recycled-content carpets, pads, tile and roofing
materials.

Homeowner education: Create a home-operations manual. Install a rainwater
collection system. Don't use turf grass. Plumb drain water from sinks for
irrigation. If using a tank to heat water, install it within the living space.
Build a lockable storage unit for hazardous materials.

ON THE WEB

Built Green -- www.builtgreen.org

Built Green Washington -- www.builtgreenwashington.org

Northwest Energy Star -- www.northwestenergystar.com

Previously in the P-I: Martha Rose, Ballard-based builder-developer. Read more
at: goto.seattlepi.com/233259.

P-I reporter Gordy Holt can be reached at 206-448-8356 or
gordyholt@....

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

[The Abstract for the research article is appended below these two news stories.
Prolonged use is defined by the study as 2,000 hours or more of cell phone use
over a ten year period, or one hour per day.]

  * * *

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-\
04-06T193918Z_01_N061368_RTRUKOC_0_US-FDA-CELLPHONES.xml

FDA questions latest cell phone safety study

By Susan Heavey
Thu Apr 6, 2006 3:39 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Thursday
questioned a recently published study that raised concerns about a heightened
risk of brain cancer in wireless phone users, but added the agency would review
all related data.

Swedish researchers said last month the use of cellular phones over a long
period of time can raise the risk of brain tumors. Their findings contradict a
number of earlier studies and are "difficult to interpret," the FDA said.

The FDA noted the study used a mailed questionnaire with a few follow-up
interviews by telephone rather than in-person evaluations. It also did not make
certain statistical adjustments to take possible other factors into account, the
agency said.

Still, the FDA said it "plans to convene a meeting in the near future to
evaluate research conducted to date in this area and identify gaps in knowledge
that warrant additional research."

It also will continue to monitor studies for possible health problems stemming
from exposure to radio frequency energy.

The FDA said it posted its comments on its Web site after receiving numerous
queries following the latest findings. In the past, the agency and the Federal
Communications Commission have said there is no known cancer risk, but if there
is any risk, it is likely very small.

The Swedish study is not consistent with several other long-terms studies
published over the years that found no evidence of harm from radiation emitted
from cell phones.

A Dutch Health Council review of research from around the world did not find
harm from the phones or TV towers, which also emit radiation. Another four-year
British survey showed no link between regular, long-term use of cell phones and
the most common type of tumor.

An industry representative said the vast majority of scientists have already
concluded wireless phones are safe.

"When you objectively look at the enormous body of science that exists, you have
to conclude that there is no evidence of adverse health effects," said Joe
Farren, spokesman for CTIA, a wireless industry trade association.

He added the FDA had already been planning to conduct a review.

Other scientific experts have said driving while using cell phones is more
dangerous than the threat of cancer.

The researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life compared data
from 2,200 cancer patients and an equal number of healthy patients.

Those who heavily used wireless phones had a 240 percent increased risk of a
cancerous tumor on the side of the head where they used their phone, they
reported on March 31.

The results, published in the International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, defined heavy use of wireless phones as 2,000 or more
hours, or about one hour per day for 10 years.


(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky)

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

  * * *

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-03-\
31T143018Z_01_L31442292_RTRUKOC_0_US-PHONES.xml

Long mobile phone use raises brain tumor risk

Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:30 AM ET

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - The use of mobile phones over a long period of time can
raise the risk of brain tumors, according to a Swedish study released on Friday,
contradicting the conclusions of other researchers.

Last year, the Dutch Health Council, in an overview of research from around the
world, found no evidence that radiation from mobile phones and TV towers was
harmful. A four-year British survey in January also showed no link between
regular, long-term use of cell phones and the most common type of tumor.

But researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life looked at
mobile phone use of 2,200 cancer patients and an equal number of healthy control
cases.

Of the cancer patients, aged between 20 and 80, 905 had a malignant brain tumor
and about a tenth of them were also heavy users of mobile phones.

"Of these 905 cases, 85 were so-called high users of mobile phones, that is they
began early to use mobile and/or wireless telephones and used them a lot," said
the authors of the study in a statement issued by the Institute.

Published in the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental
Health, the study defines heavy use as 2,000 plus hours, which "corresponds to
10 years' use in the work place for one hour per day".

Early use was defined as having begun to use a mobile phone before the age of
20.

There was also shown to be a marked increase in the risk of tumor on the side of
the head where the telephone was generally used, said the study, which took into
account factors such as smoking habits, working history and exposure to other
agents.

Kjell Mild, who led the study, said the figures meant that heavy users of mobile
phones had a 240 percent increased risk of a malignant tumor on the side of the
head the phone is used.

"The way to get the risk down is to use handsfree," he told Reuters.

He said his study was the biggest yet to look at long-term users of the wireless
phone, which has been around in Sweden in a portable form since 1984, longer
than in many other countries.


© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

  * * *

http://springerlink.com/(uxdmso55ziwrani1dhoify45)/app/home/contribution.asp?ref\
errer=parent&backto=searcharticlesresults,1,3;

International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
ISSN: 0340-0131 (Paper) 1432-1246 (Online)
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-006-0088-5
Issue:  Online First

Original Article
Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on use of cellular and cordless
telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997-2003

Lennart Hardell1, 2, Michael Carlberg1 and Kjell Hansson Mild2, 3
  (1) Department of Oncology, University Hospital, 701 85 Örebro, Sweden
  (2) Department of Natural Sciences, Örebro University, 701 82 Örebro, Sweden
  (3) National Institute for Working Life, 907 13 Umeå, Sweden

Received: 30 August 2005  Accepted: 5 January 2006  Published online: 16 March
2006

Abstract   Objectives: To study the use of cellular and cordless telephones and
the risk for malignant brain tumours. Methods: Two case-control studies on
malignant brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003 included answers from 905
(90%) cases and 2,162 (89%) controls aged 20-80 years. We present pooled
analysis of the results in the two studies. Results: Cumulative lifetime use for
>2,000 h yielded for analogue cellular phones odds ratio (OR)=5.9, 95%
confidence interval (CI)=2.5-14, digital cellular phones OR=3.7, 95% CI=1.7-7.7,
and for cordless phones OR=2.3, 95% CI=1.5-3.6. Ipsilateral exposure increased
the risk for malignant brain tumours; analogue OR=2.1, 95% CI=1.5-2.9, digital
OR=1.8, 95% CI=1.4-2.4, and cordless OR=1.7, 95% CI=1.3-2.2. For high-grade
astrocytoma using >10 year latency period analogue phones yielded OR=2.7, 95%
CI=1.8-4.2, digital phones OR=3.8, 95% CI=1.8-8.1, and cordless phones OR=2.2,
95% CI=1.3-3.9. In the multivariate analysis all phone types increased the risk.
Regarding digital phones OR=3.7, 95% CI=1.5-9.1 and cordless phones OR=2.1, 95%
CI=0.97-4.6 were calculated for malignant brain tumours for subjects with first
use use <20 years of age, higher than in older persons. Conclusion: Increased
risk was obtained for both cellular and cordless phones, highest in the group
with >10 years latency period.

Keywords  Astrocytoma - Glioblastoma - Mobile phones - DECT - Microwaves

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/business/08gasoline.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Now in the Rearview Mirror: Low Gasoline Prices

By JAD MOUAWAD
Published: April 8, 2006

This weekend, Maria Bland says she will be driving around in a pristine Ford
F-150 truck, picking up her dryer and dishwasher from the repair store and
enjoying a smooth ride in Miami's sunny weather.

Illustration Omitted:
	 In California, drivers have paid more than $3 a gallon for gasoline. Justin
Sullivan/Getty Images

She will also be saving on her gasoline bill: Ms. Bland, a secretarial assistant
at a technical high school, is renting the truck for the weekend rather than
drive her 13-year old GMC pickup, which gets much poorer mileage. Ms. Bland, who
has been renting regularly as gasoline prices have risen, said, "Sometimes,
nothing will do like a rental."

Across the country, Alex Patel, a real estate investor who lives near San
Francisco, recently bought a hybrid Lexus to improve his fuel mileage. He
regularly checks the Web for the cheapest service stations in his neighborhood.
Still, he spends $50 each week to fill up his tank, a lot considering that he
drives 30,000 to 40,000 miles a year.

"I never used to give gasoline a second thought," said Mr. Patel, 31. "Now, I am
more likely to drive a few extra blocks to save a few pennies here and there."

Drivers are once again feeling pain at the pump. Prices have soared in recent
weeks, reaching a national average of $2.61 a gallon for regular gasoline, 36
cents more than at this time last year, according to AAA. In California, drivers
have paid $3 a gallon and more.

Analysts warn that gasoline prices could jump further when the driving season
begins. Yet there have been no shortages or hurricanes to blame for the high
cost of fuel this year. Now, strong demand, limited growth in supplies and
instability in some of the leading oil-producing nations are all contributing to
more volatile oil markets, therefore higher gasoline prices.

Americans are increasingly facing the fact that inexpensive gasoline, like
airline meals, has become a thing of the past. "Motorists need to prepare
themselves for the possibility that gasoline will continue to go up each year,"
said Geoff Sundstrom, a spokesman for the national office of AAA in Heathrow,
Fla. "There will be peaks and valleys, but prices will keep going up."

A. J. Teixeira, who works as an information technology specialist for the World
Bank in Washington, says that since Hurricane Katrina drove up gas prices, he
cut down on his family's twice-a-month weekends at their Ocean City, Md., beach
house, and now does the 300-mile round trips only once a month. If gasoline
prices rise more - as he expects they will - Mr. Teixeira might make minor
adjustments to his routine, including carpooling when taking his two children to
school or cutting down on trips to the mall.

"I struggle to adjust to the reality of higher prices," Mr. Teixeira said. "Our
lifestyle is designed around the car and cheap gasoline. There's very little we
can do about it to reduce our dependency on our automobiles - between the
schools, the children's activities, the soccer practice, and the rest, nothing
is within walking distance anymore."

Unsurprisingly, the volatility of crude oil, which has doubled in price over the
last two years, is the primary driver of gasoline prices. Oil accounts for about
60 percent of the price of gasoline - the rest is broken down among taxes, 20
percent, and then refining and marketing costs, which remain fairly constant.
Yesterday, oil futures in New York traded at $67.39 a barrel.

After Hurricane Katrina, gasoline prices briefly increased above an average $3 a
gallon nationally when refineries along the Gulf Coast were shut down. That
brought prices, once adjusted for inflation, above records reached during the
oil shocks of the late 1970's and early 1980's. There were even short-lived
gasoline lines as supplies failed to reach consumers.

To be sure, producers are starting to make the huge investments that will
eventually increase the world's production, but that process will take years to
complete. Meanwhile, there is very little extra oil to put on the market to damp
prices.

With such a tenuous - and unstable - system, there is not much margin for error,
said Jan Stuart, an economist at UBS in New York.

"The big wild card this year is that there's little to no room for anything to
go wrong," Mr. Stuart said, "and certainly nothing like a refinery blowing up or
a hurricane hitting the coast."

Still, the biggest surprise so far is that high prices seem to have had little
impact on driving habits. Gasoline demand, which averaged 9.1 million barrels a
day last month, remains very strong; in fact, it is up by 2 percent since
January 2004 when oil prices began to rise. Analysts are puzzled.

"The real question is, What will consumers do?" said John Felmy, the chief
economist at the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's main trade group.
"That's a key part of the equation."

In Washington, the prospect of high energy prices during an election year has
spurred Congress into action. On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee
introduced a bill aimed at increasing competition in the oil and gas industry
and strengthening antitrust regulations.

While demand remains robust, there have also been mounting concerns about
gasoline supplies, especially this summer.

Indeed, refiners have been hard pressed to catch up with rising demand. While
refining capacity has increased in recent years, it has been outpaced by the
growth in consumption. The domestic capacity is around 17 million barrels of oil
a day, but the country consumes some 20.5 million barrels of oil products a day,
nearly half of that as gasoline.

To make up the difference, the nation has grown increasingly dependent on
imports of a wide range of petroleum products, chief among them gasoline. For
example, gasoline imports reached one million barrels a day last year, or nearly
11 percent of the country's daily needs.

Faced with strong public and political pressure, refiners announced in recent
months plans to increase the country's total capacity by about 1.4 million
barrels by 2010, according to Bob Slaughter, the head of the refiners' trade
group.

"This year presents the refining industry with several significant challenges,"
Mr. Slaughter said. "But we are experts at trying to make the whole supply
system work."

Still, he added, "In any scenario, the imports are going to continue going up."

The problem is that some imports from European or Caribbean refiners might not
be available much longer as the United States tightens it environmental
regulations. This year for example, refiners must start producing
ultra-low-sulfur diesel that meets standards much more stringent than those in
Europe.

"Will foreign refiners step up and meet this increased demand from the United
States? That's really uncertain now," said Mr. Felmy of the petroleum institute.

Also, many analysts have voiced concerns about the industry's move to abandon a
popular but highly controversial additive to gasoline, called methyl
tertiary-butyl ether, or MTBE, and replace it with ethanol by May. The Energy
Department issued a stark report in February that warned of a possible shortfall
of 130,000 barrels a day, which ethanol producers might not be able to fill. The
Senate also held hearings late last month to warn refiners about potential
shortages this summer.

Consumers seemed somewhat resigned to paying more for gasoline.

"I understand it's a matter of supply and demand and there is now more
competition for energy resources around the world," said Roger Smith, a
40-year-old senior software engineer with Apple Computer in Cupertino, Calif.
"Whoever's willing to pay the higher price is going to gain access. But there is
always that straw that will break the camel's back and cause people to change
their driving habit."

"If gasoline reached $4," Mr. Smith said, "I'd think twice about driving to the
supermarket to buy milk."



***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

[Although, I do think I'd rather live in a community with a 75% recycling rate
than in one with a 25% recycling rate.  Besides, if how much we throw away in
not kept clearly in sight, which recycling does, then we will be less likely to
buy conservatively, I suspect.]

  * * *

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4877504.stm

Last Updated: Friday, 7 April 2006, 07:45 GMT 08:45 UK

VIEWPOINT
The meaningless ritual of recycling

Timothy Cooper

Is recycling an essential tool in the armoury of a responsible citizen to reduce
the pressure on our ailing planet? Or, as Timothy Cooper argues in this week's
Green Room, is it a meaningless ritual that fails to get to grips with the real
problems of copious consumption?

   Although the ideology of environmentalism has become more and more popular
since the 1970s, its real influence has also been systematically neutered

Recycling has become a moral obligation for our times.

If we do not take the trouble to wash and sort all those reusable plastics,
papers and tins, then we risk - at the very least - guilt.

In some places, those found infringing the sanctity of our multiplying
multi-coloured bins run the risk of being fined or face the withdrawal of their
waste removal service.

But why do we go to so much trouble? How useful is recycling? Can it really
solve the "waste crisis"?

A thrifty past

History has an important role to play in understanding how recycling has come to
be so important a part of the moral and cultural fabric of our lives.

We are not always conscious that recycling is not new. The idea of sorting,
categorizing and reusing the wastes of a consumer society can seem a novelty,
but most societies have some system of re-use.

In the UK, recycling, repair and re-use can be traced to pre-industrial
activities. Think of the wandering tinker, or old clothes trader, going back to
at least the 17th Century.

It might be thought that the recycling of domestic waste is new, but this is not
so.

Victorian cities were littered with "dust yards" staffed by armies of underpaid
and exploited women workers who were paid to sift through urban waste to recover
items of value.

Later, during the two world wars, there was a veritable recycling craze in the
guise of salvage drives. Citizens, motivated by patriotism, strived to collect
useful waste such as grease and bones (for manufacturing explosives) or paper
and tins.

In the wake of the wartime experience, some experts even tried to establish
large scale recycling plants, which they hoped would solve the waste problem and
turn a handsome profit at the same time.

The rise of consumerism

So where did all this recycling activity go? Why did it, apparently, die out?
The short answer is that it became unfashionable.

The triumphant rise of consumerism, and the myth that we were what we wore - or
ate, or drove, or owned - displaced thrift. Waste itself changed.

The invasion of the High Street by the supermarket saw the branded packet of
this, or tin of that, replace more efficient forms of cooking or buying from
butchers or bakers.

But this displacement was presented as a good thing, packaged goods were
supposed to be hygienic, convenient, and progressive.

Yet, the mountains of waste continued to rise.

The amount of household waste generated increased from nine million tonnes in
1939 to 14 million tonnes in 1968. By 2005 the figure had doubled, reaching
about 30 million tonnes.

At first, local authorities responded to the crisis by tipping. Out-of-sight
out-of-mind was the watchword, and everyone was content to forget their waste.

However, the rise of environmentalism in the 1960s made forgetting increasingly
difficult. Waste was everywhere, ruining the pristine condition of nature and
reducing reserves of raw materials. Rather than delivering progress, the
affluent society was rapidly running into the environmental buffers.

This was not at all what capitalism was supposed to deliver, and it put the
ideology of consumerism under threat. If supermarket shelves were to continue
ringing up profits, if old cars were to go on being replaced with new, people
had to be persuaded to forget their waste again.

What better means to achieve this than to persuade them to recycle?

An excuse to consume

Illustration Omitted:
	  Is retail therapy not absolutely fabulous after all?

Although the ideology of environmentalism has become more and more popular since
the 1970s, its real influence has also been systematically neutered.

What does it matter if I burn energy like there is no tomorrow if I also recycle
my old tins? Let's get that new DVD player, the old video can be stripped down
and its parts reused.

The guilty need for the latest mobile phone with its new gadget can be assuaged
by knowing that the old one may find a worthy home in a third world country.

Can it be any coincidence that, if you want to recycle your glass bottles, the
recycling centre is to be found at the supermarket car park?

This relationship proclaims that "it's fine to consume because you are
recycling, and while you are here why not buy some more?"

What the revival of recycling has really done, like the myth of "ethical
consumerism", is to give the impression that the environmental crisis presented
by global capitalism can be indefinitely delayed if only we all do our bit.

It places the blame for environmental problems not on those who make the
profits, but on a faceless mass of "consumers".

It prevents us asking the important question of capitalism: how much longer can
this go on, and if it is to end then how?

We can take control of our future, but not if we allow ourselves to be blinded
by meaningless rituals.


Timothy Cooper is a research fellow in environmental history at the University
of St Andrews, Scotland

The Green Room is a series of opinion pieces on environmental issues running
weekly on the BBC News website

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4877504.stm

Published: 2006/04/07 07:45:57 GMT

© BBC MMVI

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07punish.html

Study Links Punishment to an Ability to Profit

By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: April 7, 2006

Sociologists have long known that communes and other cooperative groups usually
collapse into bickering and disband if they do not have clear methods of
punishing members who become selfish or exploitative.

Now an experiment by a team of German economists has found one reason punishment
is so important: Groups that allow it can be more profitable than those that do
not.

Given a choice, most people playing an investment game created by the
researchers initially decided to join a group that did not penalize its members.
But almost all of them quickly switched to a punitive community when they saw
that the change could profit them personally.

The study, appearing today in the journal Science, suggests that groups with few
rules attract many exploitative people who quickly undermine cooperation. By
contrast, communities that allow punishment, and in which power is distributed
equally, are more likely to draw people who, even at their own cost, are willing
to stand up to miscreants.

An expert not involved in the study, Elinor Ostrom, co-director of the Workshop
in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University, said it helped
clarify the conditions under which people will penalize others to promote
cooperation.

"I am very pleased to see this experiment being done and published so
prominently," Dr. Ostrom said, "because we still have many puzzles to solve when
it comes to the effect of punishment on behavior."

Dr. Ostrom has done fieldwork with cooperatives around the world and said she
often asked other researchers and students whether they knew of any long-lasting
communal group that did not employ a system of punishment. "No one can give me
an example," she said.

In the experiment, investigators at the University of Erfurt in Germany enrolled
84 students in the investment game and gave them 20 tokens apiece to start. In
each round of the game, every participant decided whether to hold on to the
tokens or invest some of them in a fund whose guaranteed profit was distributed
equally among all members of the group, including the "free riders" who sat on
their money. Because the profit was determined by a multiple of the tokens
invested, each participant who contributed to the fund enjoyed less of a return
than if the free riders had done so as well.

The tokens could be redeemed for real money at the end of the experiment.

About two-thirds of the students initially chose to play in a group that did not
permit punishment. In the other group, the students had the option in each round
of penalizing other players; it cost one token to dock another player three
tokens. All participants could see who was contributing what as the game
progressed, and could choose to switch groups before each round.

By the fifth round, about half of those who began the study in the no-penalty
group had switched to the punitive one. A smaller number of students migrated in
the other direction, but by Round 20 most had come back and the punishment-free
community was a virtual ghost town.

"The bottom line of the paper is that when you have people with shared
standards, and some who have the moral courage to sanction others, informally,
then this kind of society manages very successfully," said the study's senior
author, Bettina Rockenbach, who was joined in the research by Bernd Irlenbusch,
now at the London School of Economics, and Ozgur Gurek.

Switching groups frequently prompted remarkable behavioral changes in the
students. Many of those who had been free riders in the laissez-faire group
eagerly began penalizing other selfish players upon switching. Dr. Rockenbach
compares these people to heavy smokers who are insistent on their right to light
up, until they quit. "Then they become the most militant of the antismokers,"
she said.

Being exploited appeared to cause deep frustration and anger in most students,
she said.

Other experts said the results were an important demonstration of how
self-interest can trump people's aversion to punitive norms, at least in the
laboratory. Out in the world, they said, it is not usually so clear who is
free-riding, or even whether a given group is encouraging cooperative behavior
in most people.

"The mystery, if there is one, is how these institutions evolve in the first
place," Duncan J. Watts, a sociologist at Columbia, wrote in an e-mail message,
"i.e., before it is apparent to anyone that they can resolve the problem of
cooperation."


***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.sundayherald.com/55029

Leading scientists attack Blair over nuclear power
      40 experts urge change of focus to renewables
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor

TONY Blair's plan to resurrect nuclear power is going to be dealt a damaging
blow by 40 of Britain's leading energy and climate scientists, the Sunday Herald
can reveal.

Engineers, experts and academics from Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Oxford and
Cambridge will forcibly tell the Prime Minister this week that building more
nuclear reactors is not the solution to global warming.

Nuclear power is "a limited, inflexible, expensive and potentially dangerous
energy source which creates unique problems", they say. Alternatives including
greater energy efficiency and renewable sources are more likely to deliver safe,
secure and climate-friendly energy.

The UK government launched its heavily trailed review of energy policy in
January. It is widely expected to conclude that Britain needs to build a new
programme of nuclear power stations in order to help combat climate change.

But tomorrow, Downing Street will be presented with a powerful counter-argument
from some of the country's best energy brains. "Continued use of nuclear power
will increase the opportunities for the spread of nuclear weapons," they warn.

Nuclear waste will have to be isolated from the environment "for timescales
which dwarf that of human civilisation", they point out. They added: "We also
believe that nuclear facilities pose a very serious risk due to the possibility
of terrorist attack."

In a joint letter to Blair, they conclude: "We strongly urge the UK government
not to decide in favour of a new generation of nuclear power stations, but
rather to invest the resources and research effort into alternatives."

One of the scientists behind the move is Keith Barnham, a professor of physics
from Imperial College, London. "Nuclear new build will be too little, too late,
too expensive and too dangerous," he told the Sunday Herald.

"Every man, woman and child in the UK is committed to paying over £30 per head
per year for over 30 years to clear up the waste from the existing reactors. No
industry with a record like that should be allowed a second chance."

Barnham pointed out that it will take at least 10 years to build a new nuclear
reactor. "We need to act now to stop global warming," he said. "Germany already
has more wind power capacity than all the UK nuclear reactors together, and in
five years will have installed as much solar electricity."

Another signatory is Tim Jackson, a professor at the Centre for Environmental
Strategy at the University of Surrey. "This is completely the wrong time for
Tony Blair to be issuing party invitations to the nuclear lobby," he said.

"The industry has failed to make a coherent financial case, failed to come up
with a credible strategy for dealing with long-term radioactive waste, and
failed to allay public concerns over the security implications of the nuclear
fuel cycle."

He added: "The Prime Minister should be strengthening his government's
weak-willed commitment to energy efficiency, demand reduction and renewable
energy, not mortgaging the future for countless generations to the hazards of
nuclear power."

The joint letter was co-ordinated by Scientists for Global Responsibility, an
independent, 850-strong group concerned about social justice and environmental
sustainability. It is anxious to dispel the notion that scientists are all
pro-nuclear.

Stuart Parkinson, the group's executive director, said: "There's a perception
that all scientists and engineers think new nuclear power is the way to go to
tackle climate change and improve energy security, but this is not true.

"Many are sceptical of nuclear [energy] and believe that other measures such as
controlling energy demand, improving energy efficiency and expanding renewable
energy are superior options."

Parkinson attacked the UK government's record on energy efficiency and
renewables as "piecemeal and half-hearted". He pointed out that the costs of
cleaning up the legacy of the past 60 years of nuclear power were spiralling
ever upwards, with some estimates now over £100 billion.

"We simply do not believe the government when it says that a new generation of
nuclear power stations can be built, operated and decommissioned without
significant sums of public money."

Parkinson was also concerned about the global example being set by the UK. "Our
government seems keen to stick with both nuclear power and nuclear weapons. So
how are we to convince countries like Iran and North Korea that they shouldn't
try and copy us?"

Another prominent signatory to the letter is Nottingham University professor
Mark Whitby, a former president of the Institution of Civil Engineers. He
criticised the construction industry for lobbying strongly behind the scenes in
favour of a new nuclear programme.

That industry's claim that the lights would go out because nearly all of
Britain's nuclear power stations would be closed by 2020 was "sensationalist",
he said. Only a few small stations would be closed, and there were plentiful
supplies of gas from abroad.

Nuclear power would not be a low emitter of climate-wrecking carbon pollution,
either, Whitby argued, because of the high energy costs of extracting low-grade
uranium ores in the future.

"Nuclear power is very expensive compared to other technologies," he said. "It
has gone bankrupt on a number of occasions. It is not cheap to build, to run or
to decommission."

The letter was also signed by Dr Katherine Begg, an energy and climate policy
analyst from Edinburgh University. She said she was worried about the
implications for the spread of nuclear weapons, and the costs: "The money spent
so far on promoting and implementing alternatives is increasing, but is a drop
in the ocean compared to that required to build new nuclear stations and support
them."

Other signatories include Dr Marion Hersh, a senior lecturer in electrical
engineering at Glasgow University; Roy Butterfield, emeritus professor of civil
engineering at Southampton University; Dr Sarah Darby, an environmental
scientist from Oxford University; Dr Tim Foxon, a climate scientist from
Cambridge University; and Dr Frank Barnaby, a nuclear scientist from the Oxford
Research Group.

The nuclear industry responded by arguing that nuclear power was necessary to
slow global warming. "Climate change is one of the greatest threats facing us
today and we need to use all the tools at our disposal to tackle it," said Simon
James, the spokesman for the UK Nuclear Industry Association.

"While we've not seen this letter, we're sure its authors would agree that
renewables or energy efficiency on their own can't tackle the problem. We should
be using renewables, energy efficiency, nuclear and carbon sequestration to
really make a difference."

The signatoriesDr Stuart Parkinson BEng PhD Executive Director, Scientists for
Global Responsibility

Dr Frank Barnaby MSc PhD DSc (Hon) Nuclear security scientist, Oxford Research
Group

Prof Keith Barnham BSc PhD Professor of physics, Imperial College, London

Dr Kathryn Bashford BSc PhD Climate impacts scientist (education sector)

Dr Katherine Begg BSc PhD MRSC Energy and climate policy analyst, Centre for the
Study of Environmental Change and Sustainability, University of Edinburgh

Dr William Bordass MA PhD CompanionCIBSE HonFRIBA Energy and buildings
consultant, William Bordass Associates

Prof Roy Butterfield DSc DIC BSc MICE MIStructE Professor emeritus of civil
engineering, University of Southampton

Dr David Cromwell BSc PhD Climate physicist, University of Southampton

Fiona Cruchley MSc Climate policy analyst (public sector)

Dr Sarah Darby BSc DPhil Energy and environment scientist, Environmental Change
Institute, University of Oxford

Dr Stephen Dickinson BEng PhD MIEE CEng Lecturer in electrical engineering,
Lancaster University

Brian Edwards MCIBSE Chartered building services engineer (industry)

Dr Tim Foxon BSc PhD Climate technology and policy scientist, Cambridge Centre
for Climate Change Mitigation Research, University of Cambridge

Dr Marion Hersh MA MSc PhD MIEE CEng CMath Senior lecturer in electrical
engineering, Glasgow University

Dr Dan van der Horst PhD Lecturer in environmental management, University of
Birmingham

Dr Jane Hunt PhD Sociologist in science and technology, Centre for the Study of
Environmental Change, Lancaster University

Prof Tim Jackson MA PhD FRSA Professor of sustainable development, Centre for
Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey

Dr Christian Jardine MChem DPhil Renewable energy scientist, Environmental
Change Institute, University of Oxford

Genevieve Jones BSc Arch dip Arch Lecturer in sustainable design and technology,
Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen

Gavin Killip MSc Energy and environment scientist, Environmental Change
Institute, University of Oxford

Dr Martin Juckes MA PhD Atmospheric scientist (public research institution)

Dr Jonathan Köhler PhD MRINA Climate technology and policy scientist Tyndall
Centre and Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research, University
of Cambridge

Dr Jeremy Leggett DPhil Chief Executive Officer, Solar Century Ltd

Roger Levett BSc Energy and sustainable development consultant, Levett-Therivel
Sustainability Consultants

Dr Larch Maxey LLB MSc PhD Lecturer in geography, University of Wales, Swansea

Dr Jenny Nelson BA PhD Solar energy physicist, Imperial College, London

Dr Brian Orr BSc PhD Energy engineer (independent)

Prof Malcolm Povey BA PhD FInstP CPhys CEng Professor of food physics,
University of Leeds

Dr Jerome Ravetz PhD Philosopher in science, technology and policy, James Martin
Institute for Science and Civilization, University of Oxford

Dr Renata Romanowicz PhD DSc Environment and climate scientist, Lancaster
University

Dr Janet Rudge BA BArch MSc PhD Energy, environment and health scientist, London
Metropolitan University

Dr Adrian Smith Dip Lang BEng MSc DPhil Energy and technology policy analyst,
SPRU, University of Sussex

Dr Heidi Smith BSc MSc PhD Climate impacts scientist (public sector)

Dr Ian Taylor BA PhD Energy and transport consultant (consultancy)

Laura Thompson BSc Energy and environment consultant, Thames Valley Energy
Centre

Dr James B Thring BArch MCD PhD MRTPI Energy and environment consultant
(independent)

Tom Tibbits MSci ARCS Solar energy physicist, Imperial College, London

Dr Philip Webber BSc PhD DIC MIEMA Energy and sustainable development analyst
(public sector)

Prof Mark Whitby BSc FREng FICE Hon FRIBA Professor of sustainable construction,
Nottingham University, and former President of the Institution of Civil
Engineers

Prof John Whitelegg BA PhD LLB Professor of sustainable development, Stockholm
Environment Institute, University of York

NB Affiliations are given for information only. All signatories are signing in a
personal capacity.

09 April 2006


©2006 newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/09/a_house_like_few_others_all\
_green/

MARION
A house like few others, all green
By Paul E. Kandarian, Globe Correspondent  |  April 9, 2006

The house that Will Saltonstall is building is thoroughly green -- a description
that has nothing to do with the color and everything to do with its
environmentally friendly design.

The cedar shingle house on Ryder Lane is one of just 50 in the nation and 11 in
Massachusetts that meet the strict environmental and conservation standards that
earn it the official ''green" label, according to the United States Green
Building Council. (There are also green homes in Mansfield, Brockton, and
Quincy.) It is being built as part of the council's Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design -- or LEED -- home pilots program.

Living in a green home is the real estate equivalent of driving a fuel-efficient
hybrid car that burns gas and runs on electricity.

''We cater to that, to people willing to spend a little more to help the
environment and, in the long run, save money," said Saltonstall, owner of
Saltonstall Architects Inc. ''We've been integrating green methods in buildings
for a long time and try to convince our clients to do more of it."

Saltonstall's house is a pleasant-looking red-cedar shingled structure that
overlooks the ballfields at Tabor Academy in front, with a partial view of
Sippican Harbor to the side. Atop one section of roof are solar panels that look
more like large skylights. The panels will account for 60 to 70 percent of the
home's hot water needs in warmer weather, he said. Windows abound and feature
solar-resistant glazing.

The house will have efficient plumbing and a boost from Mother Nature: Rain
water will be collected in two tanks, one for irrigation, one for flushing
toilets. And the house is so tight and well insulated that it does not need
radiators along the walls, which are usually used to make up for heat loss from
windows. The home is being built with hot-water tubes running beneath the floor
to heat from below.

The house is oriented to take advantage of summer's southwest winds while
resisting winter northerlies, he said. Outside, permeable paving materials and
native plantings minimize the impact on surface water runoff, eliminating the
need for a permanent irrigation system.

Tabor Academy's athletic building, which Saltonstall designed and is in view of
the Ryder Lane house, also has a system that collects water runoff for
irrigation. Things like that, he said, are among the many things homeowners can
do to make their homes more green.

Short-run costs of constructing a green house could run 10 to 15 percent higher
than conventional construction, Saltonstall said, but the long-run tradeoff is
worth it. A green home can save 25 to 35 percent in energy costs, he said.

The LEED program is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for
developing high-performance, sustainable buildings. To earn LEED's green rating,
a house must qualify in five categories: Site selection/sustainability, water
efficiency, indoor environmental quality, efficient use of building materials
and resources, and energy conservation. Saltonstall said his firm has for years
been pushing environmentally sound houses that use energy-efficient heating
systems and collect rainwater for irrigation.

He is also keen on another LEED mandate: eliminating construction waste. The
National Association of Home Builders estimates that there are four pounds of
material waste for every square foot of new residential construction. The Ryder
Lane home is 2,100 square feet, meaning it could generate 8,400 pounds of waste.
Saltonstall aims to cut that in half.

''For example, we're making the studs 24 inches on center instead of the usual
16 inches," he said, adding that they also make use of available timber lengths
to avoid chopping them up to fit, which incurs more waste. ''We'll probably use
10 to 15 percent less framing stock alone."

Saltonstall sought out being a part of the LEED's pilot program, having known
about LEED for several years. He calls it ''the benchmark for green building."
When the house is complete, he said, he will offer it for sale -- probably for
about $800,000.

While educational institutions have been in the forefront of building green,
more and more people are recognizing the need to go green in residential
construction as well, Saltonstall said.

''I think concepts like this will be integrated in all building in the next 10
years as resources become more expensive," he said. ''I wouldn't be surprised to
see wood 2-by-4s, for example, to be replaced by plastic, metal, or a composite
material."

Green building has been more concentrated in denser urban areas, he said, and
not in places like Marion. But as energy costs skyrocket, more people will be
looking to save green by building green, he said.

''The cost might be 10 to 15 percent more than regular construction," he said.
''But you get payback in about 10 years in energy costs and durability."


© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.greenbiz.com/toolbox/tools_third.cfm?LinkAdvID=69061

Dictionary of Sustainable Management
Source: Presidio School of Management

San Francisco-based Presidio School of Management offers an innovative MBA
program that integrates environmental, ethical, and socially responsible
concerns into every course. This online Dictionary of Sustainable Management
<http://www.sustainabilitydictionary.com/>, compiled by Presidio MBA students,
features more than 250 must-know terms of sustainable business.

Definitions range from e-waste to zero waste, including common
sustainable-business terms such as "integrated bottom line," "natural capital,"
"biomimicry," and "life-cycle analysis." Listings for traditional business terms
describe how a sustainability slant may alter or enhance their mainstream
definitions. The dictionary also includes a feature that allows users to comment
on (or add meaning to) any term.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/business/14306803.htm

Posted on Mon, Apr. 10, 2006

Silicon Valley venture capitalist sees growth in green technology

TERENCE CHEA
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr made his name and
fortune with early investments in pioneering tech firms like Netscape, Amazon
and Google that went from scrappy startups to household names.

Now Doerr and his firm, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Beyers, are placing big bets
on an emerging sector he calls "green technology," which he believes could one
day be at least as big as information technology or biotechnology.

Menlo Park-based Kleiner Perkins plans to set aside $100 million of its latest
$600 million fund to technologies that help provide cleaner energy,
transportation, air and water.

"This field of green-tech could be the largest economic opportunity of the 21st
century," Doerr said. "There's never been a better time than now to start or
accelerate a greentech venture."

As one of Silicon Valley's most respected investors, Doerr's decision to
champion green technology as the next big thing is generating buzz in the
venture capital community.

"When John Doerr talks, people listen," said Mark Heesen, president of the
National Venture Capital Association. "John appears to have an innate ability to
spot trends and execute a business plan that is actually able to take advantage
of those trends."

Kleiner Perkins' plan to ramp up investment in green technology is just the
latest sign of the sector's growth. Also known as clean technology, the field
includes technologies related to water purification, air quality,
nanotechnology, alternative fuels, manufacturing, recycling and renewable
energy.

North American venture capitalists invested more than $1.6 billion in clean-tech
companies last year, a 35 percent increase over 2004, according to a report by
the Cleantech Venture Network.

"It's a strong area for venture capital," said Craig Cuddebach, the network's
senior vice president, whose group expects venture capital investment in the
sector to double over the next three years. "It's no longer a choice between
whether you will be clean or profitable."

As prices of more traditional energy sources continue to rise, the global market
for clean energy sources such as biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells and solar and
wind energy rose to $40 billion last year, and is expected to increase to $167
billion by 2015, according to a report released last month by Clean Edge Inc., a
Bay Area marketing firm.

Past investments in renewable energy and other clean technologies often led to
disappointing returns, largely because the technologies and market demand
weren't strong enough, Heesen said. Alternative energy firms must fight for
their share of a market that's tightly regulated and dominated by the oil, coal
and natural gas industries.

"There are a lot of obstacles that stand in the way of creating a new way of
creating energy," Heesen said.

But investors are seeing better prospects as technologies advance, more seasoned
entrepreneurs enter the field and clean-tech companies generate higher revenue.
Successful initial public offerings by clean-tech companies, such as Sunnyvale,
Calif.-based SunPower Corp. and China's SunTech Power, have also stoked investor
interest.

Venture capitalists point to the global forces driving green-tech investment:
the rising cost of fuel; the economic expansion of China, India and other Asian
nations; and growing worries over global warming.

"It's one of the most pressing global challenges we face," Doerr said. "It's
causing the nations of the world to put an even higher priority than we have now
on innovation."

Doerr sees another major trend: billions of people moving to cities in
developing countries. Experts predict the number of people living in
"megacities" with more than 10 million people will triple from 2 billion to 6
billion over the next 50 years, he said.

"This is the mother of all markets," Doerr said. "As those Asian economies rise,
people will move from rural to urban settings. All those people will want the
same things that you and I want - clean water, power and transportation."

In addition to investing in green-tech ventures, Doerr said he and Kleiner
Perkins plan to "advocate for polices that reduce the climate crisis and
increase energy innovation."

Vinod Khosla, a Kleiner Perkins associate who recently started his own venture
capital firm, is financing a California ballot initiative that would increase
taxes on oil companies to fund alternative energy.

Before it announced its latest $100 million investment, Kleiner Perkins had
invested more than $50 million in seven green-tech ventures. Now the firm plans
to step up the pace of investments in biofuels, energy efficiency and renewable
energy sources such as wind and solar.

"We plan to encourage green entrepreneurs and work with other venture firms to
support them," Doerr said. "I think this is one of those areas where we can do
good and do well."

---_

On the Net:

Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers: http://www.kpcb.com/

Cleantech Venture Network: http://cleantech.com/

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=30759

Social Footprint Introduces Simple Elegance in Measuring Corporate
Sustainability Performance
Source: SocialFunds.com

NEW YORK, April 5, 2006 - There is no dearth of metrics to measure corporate
social and environmental performance -- greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
reductions, or percentage of women and people of color in the workforce and on
the board of directors, for example. What is lacking, however, is a means to
assess the actual social and environmental impacts of corporate action -- in
other words, the degree to which corporate social responsibility (CSR)
initiatives actually advance toward true sustainability. Last week, the
Vermont-based Center for Sustainable Innovation (CSI) <
http://www.sustainableinnovation.org/ > redressed this deficiency by launching a
new corporate sustainability measurement and reporting method called the "Social
Footprint." < http://www.sustainableinnovation.org/the-social-footprint.html >

"The Social Footprint is the first non-financial reporting method capable of
mathematically calculating the true bottom-line impact of an organization on
society," says Mark McElroy, executive director and chief sustainability officer
of CSI, in a report (PDF) <
http://www.sustainableinnovation.org/Social-Footprint.pdf > on the protocol.
"While other methods, like the Global Reporting Initiative <
http://www.globalreporting.org/ >, do an adequate job of expressing top-line
impacts, only the Social Footprint makes it possible to compare top-line impacts
with actual human conditions in society, and thereby compute the social
bottom-line of an organization."

The basic concept behind the Social Footprint, developed in collaboration with
the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, is elegant in its simplicity: it
hinges on comparisons, expressed quantitatively in fractions, or quotients. For
example, if a certain geographical region produces 10 million gallons of
freshwater yearly (denominator) and humans in the region use 15 million gallons
per year (numerator), then the quotient is 15/10, or 1.5.

Ecological sustainability requires the wise conservation of scarce resources for
future use, so this example clearly exposes a gap between available resources
and their use, illustrating how a quotient over 1.0 is unsustainable. The
equation turns on its head when assessing social sustainability.

"Unlike ecological capital which humans do not create, social capital is created
by people and can be grown virtually at will; we can always adjust its supply in
order to meet our needs," explains McElroy. "Thus, the gaps that must be closed
in the case of social capital are not gaps between what we are stuck with and
what we use; they are gaps between what we need and what we have decided to
produce or make available."

"For social bottom lines (or quotients), then, the rule of thumb reverses:
anything less than 1.0 is unsustainable," he continues.

Another simple example: if a community needs $10 million a year to educate its
children but spends only $2 million, the quotient is 0.2 (with anything under
1.0 representing social unsustainability.)

Jumping from simple illustrations to a real-world corporate example, compare
freshwater consumption data published by DuPont for 2001 to 2003 as the
numerator to freshwater availability data published by the Pacific Institute for
the same period as the denominator. The resulting ecological quotients are 1.37
for 2001, 1.17 for 2002, and 1.13 for 2003.

"The quotients showed that DuPont's use of freshwater was unsustainable,
although improving year over year," McElroy points out, since ecological
sustainability requires quotients under 1.0.

Interestingly, human input factors integrally into the Social Footprint's
calculations. To minimize abstraction and maximize human relevance (and perhaps
to maintain metaphorical consistency), the Social Footprint's yardstick is
"people feet" (PF), which compare the number of people involved to the social
and environmental impacts they create.

"An overriding goal of the Social Footprint is to personalize sustainability
reports -- that is, to render results that are not just expressed at
organizational or collective levels of analysis, but which are also expressed in
terms of per capita shares, stakes, or contributions to related outcomes," says
McElroy. "Thus, for a company whose operations are socially unsustainable, we
should be able to express the degree of unsustainability per employee [so] each
employee can thereby see what his or her personal contribution is to the
organization's sustainability performance."

For a real-world example of comparing a company's performance to a specific
sustainability target, look at how Wal-Mart contributes to the advancement of
the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) < http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals
>, a set of eight aspirations to reach by 2015. CSI calculates Wal-Mart's
performance as 0.10 for 2002, 0.12 for 2003, and 0.17 for 2004, far below the
goal of scores above 1.0 for social quotients.

CSI applies the same comparative method to the Social Footprint vis-à-vis other
protocols for measuring corporate social and environmental performance such as
the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The fact that GRI does not take a
quotient approach makes it possible for reporters to show year-over-year
improvements in social and environmental performance, while their actual
bottom-line performance when compared to standards of sustainability may be
worsening.

Other strengths of the Social Footprint include its flexibility, as it can be
tailored to show performance against various standards for social and
environmental performance, such as the U.N. Global Compact <
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/ >. It can also be computed at any geographic
scale of analysis -- locally, regionally, nationally, or internationally.
Finally, the Social Footprint uses metrics that can readily be integrated into
financial reports, enhancing the relevance of the method.


Copyright © The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation. All
Rights Reserved

***   NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.   ***

http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/articles.asp?art=2101&res=1024

Brownfields and Sustainable Development

Region 8 of the U.S EPA offers an online toolkit for tackling brownfields
restoration that help remediation efforts to be profitable for the community,
restorative for the environment over the long term, and sustainable.

Sustainable development is a journey of sorts, marked by incremental advances in
both thought and action. In essence, sustainable development is a way to
redefine community prosperity by realizing that economic, environmental, and
social issues are interdependent and of equal importance.

This holistic approach considers numerous costs and benefits that are not
included in the traditional decision-making process. Approaching redevelopment
in this way helps ensure that past mistakes, such as the creation of
brownfields, are not repeated.

Sustainable development promises more efficient resource use and thus more
profitable economic activity on former brownfields sites than is possible with
traditional approaches. As a result, communities can turn brownfields into
models of sustainability while still meeting and potentially surpassing their
economic development goals.

Topics discussed in the resource include
… Sustainability indicators
… Land use planning
… Reuse and/or recycling of existing buildings, infrastructure, and on-site
materials
… Open space preservation, habitat restoration, and recreation
… Green building design and construction
… Eco-Industrial Parks
… Local workforce training and development

Region 8 of the EPA serves Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming and 27 Tribal Nations.

View Brownfields and Sustainable Development: Building a Clean Future online at
the resource link below.

Resource: http://www.epa.gov/region8/land_waste/bfhome/bfsd.html