Ban Or Save the Plastic Bag?

As part of the conservation and environmental movement worldwide there are several campaigns aimed at banning the plastic bag. These fit in perfectly with going green at home and with our longer term life styles.

A quick search on the web will take you to the San Francisco Bay Area, “Bay vs Bag”, to the Daily Mail’s (UK) “Banish the Bags” as well as similar situations in Canada, Holland, China, elsewhere in the US and even Zanzibar.

A lot of the focus is based on the damage done to wild life, including sea mammals and birds; the effects on waste and the average number of bags used per person in different countries. In one of the lists I saw, Singapore was topping the list at 625 bags.

One of the targets is to reduce by 10% the yearly consumption of these bags.

On the other hand there are also “Save the Plastic Bag” campaigns, with the plastic industry behind it. Their main focus is highlighting what they call misinformation. Their points are based on “exaggerations” on the damage done to wild life; errors in how plastic bags are made (from ethane gas that would otherwise be burnt and not petroleum); effects of co2 vs methane; potential job losses and so on.

On the banning side of the argument, there can be exaggerations as well as questionable scientific data – questionable as in anybody can question it, after all to have an argument you must always have at least two points of view.

From the “saving” the industry point of view, there can be many counter arguments to the data that is presented. And this is quite understandable, after all their industry could be hit very badly. (This just reminds me that all businesses have a life time curve that goes from birth, to growth, to maturity and finally to demise. The time scale can be as short as a year to as long as a hundred years or more, but the end result is that it is replaced by something else).

Some of the arguments are saying that nets and not plastic bags are causing marine life casualties, that paper bags are a worse alternative (side stepping the plastic bag issue) and basically attacking the “plastic bag misinformation campaign”.

Very probably both sides are looking to make their points by reducing or ridiculing their opponents point of view. But the overall issue is still there – are plastic bags affecting our environment?

To get back to the plastic bag banning situation, where paper bags have the negative effect of more trees cut, the information that is being retrieved is very important. But it must also be as objective as possible. Having said that, we know that it takes literally centuries for plastic to degrade and this should be the foremost argument.

Just to expand a little on the paper bag argument, which is totally reasonable, the option is not to cut more trees. The options are to recycle and use bio-degradable alternatives.

In the old days, when plastic bags hadn’t been invented but grocery shops had, natural fiber bags were used and the customers were the ones who brought their own to the shop.

With just a little effort on the individual front, these campaigns wouldn’t be necessary.

Want to know about environment and natural living? Information, news and facts can be found at: http://natural-living-tips.com/

Green Technology Airline Flight Test

Water Efficiency

“The Resource Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”

In my last water efficiency article (Water-Efficiency: Why Most Advice You’ve Read is Absolutely Inefficient), we began a slow turn away from lighting with a discussion of the 80/20 Rule and how your little positive behavioral changes with water aren’t even a drop in the bucket when your other positive behavioral changes – making homemade pizza – evaporate the entire year’s ocean of benefits in a few tasty bites.

In a four-part series, we talk about a resource besides energy: water.

1. Today, we begin far above this “turn off the porch lights and take short, icy showers” efficiency thing to show you how we got to where we are now both in fuels and in other resources.
2. Next week, we introduce the resource called water, its parallels with fossil fuels, and its role in global warming.
3. The following week, we continue going with the flow of water, when we show the parallel between the current hot Oil Wars and in the future cold Water Wars.
4. And in the final week, we tie together the articles in a symphony of three movements, showing you how all the elements hold the Resource Matrix in place and how, like Neo in the movie, you can break the code that creates the graphical user interface and see the illusion for what it really is. (At least, my version of it, anyway.)

Ready to take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit-hole goes?

We start with one of the most boring subjects known to college students, one birthed out of the Enlightenment when extremely titled, idly rich, powdery wig-headed fancy foppish men dressed like women and walked in high heels and squealed like school girls:

Economics: it’s totally insane

Economics is described as the science of allocating scarce resources. Since it’s the study of human behavior, it’s a social science rather than a physical science.

And although any individual’s behavior may not be predictable, individuals as a group can be. Kinda like the weather: you don’t know much about a single raindrop’s effect but you can track the overall storm and predict what’s next.

Economics likes to fool itself that it can predict behavior based on the assumption that people make rational choices. Understand what people think and you understand what choices people will make.

It unfortunately leaves out the other part of being human: human behavior based on emotions.

And emotions weigh heavily in how we interact with each other, especially in exchanges of value.

Maximizing returns:
“I want your goodies for nothing”

Economics recognizes that people are motivated by self-interest to maximize their benefits at the lowest cost.

On an individual basis, this can turn into a “win-lose” proposition:

• I want to acquire the best stuff for the cheapest terms
• I want to dispose of the lousiest stuff for the greatest terms

In short, you want diamonds and gold for nothing and they want to give you useless junk for a king’s ransom.

May the Force be with you:
getting diamonds and gold for nothing:

Economics comes out of 18th century political economy, which studied production, buying and selling, and their relations with law, custom, and government. Political economy itself comes out of moral philosophy.

This moral philosophy apparently had room for colonialism, which comes pretty close to getting your diamonds and gold for nothing: forcibly take over a country and use its people to extract its resources to be reallocated to your bank account. And make sure nobody but you has any say in the matter.

Social good in the equation:

A few people didn’t see the morality in this philosophy. Enter the lousy, meddling individual do-gooders like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mohandas Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Upton Sinclair, and many others who messed with the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd.

And some of the individuals do-gooders formed their own organizations like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

They all worked to increase awareness that there are alternatives to being forced to give away your diamonds and gold for nothing while having no say in the matter, and worked to change deals from “win-lose” to “win-win.”

The “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd, who could only lose in the change to “win-win,” found their salvation in the late 1800s with the rise of modern psychology (the scientific study of mental functions and behavior). Applied to politics, it’s called propaganda. Applied to spirituality, it’s called religion. Applied to commerce, it’s called marketing and advertising.

All these applications are forms of hypnotism, and are based on the proven principle that if you repeat anything enough times, including a falsehood, your audience will grow to believe it and then to defend it as the truth.

The “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd used economics to hypnotically declare for 250 years that fossil fuels, the air, and water were without cost. They called them “free goods.”

And they used force (“Oh yeah, and what the hell are you going to do about it?”) to declare that pollution had no consequences.

What’s an Oxymoron?
“Free Good” in economics

The free good is a term used in economics to describe a good that is not scarce. A free good is available in as great a quantity as desired with zero opportunity cost to society.

Earlier schools of economic thought proposed that free goods were resources that are so abundant in nature that there is enough for everyone to have as much as they want. Examples in textbooks (even in the 1980s) included fresh water and the air that we breathe. However, these are now regarded as common goods because competition for them is rivalrous.

In short, there is no free lunch.

An additional moral philosophy:
“There’s a sucker born every minute”
becomes
“How can I help you help me?”

The “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd continues to rise early and work late to craft their “win-lose” deals every day.

Yet, out of those rising early and working late, a small radical fringe discovered the curious fact that if you don’t beat a dog bloody every time you see it, it’s less likely to bite your hand off, and it even might go out and hunt down a squirrel for your evening stew.

Their moral philosophy became a hybrid offshoot.

The Hybrids still want your goodies, but they are willing to help you get your goodies with less pain and damage to yourself so you’ll be willing to come back to them and hand over more of your goodies.

Both use the same mind-numbing hypnotic slogans: “We care about you.”

The difference is the Hybrids actually do some of those same things that someone who cares about you would do. Even if they don’t actually give a hoot about you. Contrast that to the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd, who merely sends you more hynoptic slogans when they want your goodies.

Where Do You Want to Go Today?
Everywhere but here

We’ve all awaken to the shocking realizations that:

• finite energy resources will run out
• actions have consequences, and the consequences of our actions are already visible, rather scary, and quite irreversible, and
• the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd hasn’t been telling the truth

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, you could just pop some soma and totally trip out.

But the cowardly old world we’re experiencing has quickly turned into a total bummer of a bad trip, man. Down with the Establishment and praise the Collective.

We’re all in this together, or
Toss the lousy, greedy bastards overboard

The decades of the Do-Gooders increasing our awareness of possible “win-win” possibilities and of the Hybrids backing their “we care about you” lip service with actual service has brought us to another realization:

There’s a price to everything, and if I don’t pay the price, someone else will, and somehow, some way, on some sunny day, they’re going to get even and make me pay.

And this has been an important change in the understanding of energy efficiency and global warming: the environment has a limited capacity within our human-lifetime periods to absorb civilization’s byproducts and transform them into resources. It usually needs geologic time to turn dead trees and critters into oil and gas. In the meantime, the trash piles up in the streets.

The solution: create less trash.

Thanks to the Do-Gooders, we have greater awareness or our actions and the desire to change, and have the Hybrids offering ways to change.

And the result is a shift of power away from the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd. It’s now Power to the People.

But wait, there’s more …
to the Resource Matrix

Just because you know about fossil fuels, their finite amounts, their polluting, warming effects on the environment, and alternatives offered by the Hybrids – even if you have done your part to the best of your ability to reduce, reuse, and recycle — you haven’t escaped the Resource Matrix.

Energy to power our lives is one component of the Resource Matrix. And it’s the most visible in discussions of global warming and being resourceful. But there’s more:

Coming Attractions!

In the next three articles, we will talk about concepts concerning the resource that makes up 75% of the planet and 75% of your body:

Water.

You’ll learn that, although 75% of the planet is water, only 3% of water is potable (can be consumed), and of that 3%, only a small fraction is available, and of that small fraction, only a small fraction is potable, because the rest is polluted for hundreds of years to come.

You’ll learn how the actions of an illiterate, lice-infested, foul-mouthed peasant on the other side of the globe affects you where you are.

You’ll learn how, unlike oil, water is transferred invisibly from poor to rich by sleight of hand, like paying your utility bill through your online bank account.

You’ll learn how poor water decisions, rather than fossil fuel’s atmospheric effects described in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, leads to those drybeds of the formerly humongous Aral Sea and along the Amazon.

You’ll learn how to measure the global water impact of any nation, city, corporation, even yourself – to the nearest gallon or liter.

You’ll learn the little changes you can make – the water equivalent of “change your incandescent lightbulbs to compact fluorescent lamps” – and still be able to take your wastefully long showers.

And all of this is for one purpose:

To help you see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you.

And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.

You can access it now by going to: http://www.a19.com/pub/articles/

From Cinnamon Alvarez: Founder, A19 — woman-owned green manufacturer of hand-made ceramic lighting fixtures

Convertor Of Solar

AT&T Tech ChannelFor Green Computing

Scientists Ask For Higher CO2 Cuts at Copenhagen’s Spring

The International Scientific Congress on Climate Change was held in Copenhagen between 10th to 12th March and organised by the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU): the conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report next June. Almost 1,600 scientific contributions of researchers from over 70 countries have been received, and more than 2,500 delegates attended the event.

Connie Hedegaard, Minister of Climate & Energy of Denmark said that we have “to avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable” and she pointed to their example: this European country has become a net energy exporter in 30 years, creating a green growth as a stable solution of the 70s oil crisis. The messages of the congress are various. The risk that current trends of the climatic system will accelerate has a more defined and significant meaning: more probable abrupt and irreversible shifts, and we are already above the worst scenarios published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001. Thus the big problem is trying to at least slow down these trends if not reverse them. The experts tell us that fast regional and global mitigation strategies are needed and that the more we wait the more expensive and ambitious actions will have to be taken in the future. The fact that scientists have come to the point of saying that “Inaction is Inexcusable” means also that people who studied relentlessly for decades are frustrated by the inaction of governments, businesses and people: it is understandable given that their work has not been considered and used enough, if not at all, up to now. They are speaking louder and clearer now. The different roles of politicians and scientists have to be combined. It is time for leaders to rely firmly on science as a basis for tough and unavoidable decisions. A “societal transformation” is being asked for by a wide group of the most intelligent people on the planet including diffusion of sustainable behaviours, innovative leadership, removal of subsidies and reduction of “vested interests”. These are all very explicit messages to politicians and public alike: there is a lot of work to do between now and next December’s COP15.

In the final debate the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, summarised the six messages given by scientists as 6 keywords: Urgency (of the climate change challenge), Direction (long term target to be defined), Action (short term targets to be set), Fairness (to the poorest and most vulnerable), Opportunity (to originate large benefits), Governance (creation of a new global multilateral era). He stated firmly that “Business As Usual is dead” and asked his colleagues to follow Obama’s call for a Green New Deal, already asked for by public opinion and by many political parties in the world.

After the final debate with the panel of scientists an impatient Rasmussen asked for clear words on the CO2 emission target to be set in the new treaty. Prof. Daniel Kammen, Obama’s Senior Policy Advisor, stated that an entire new industrial revolution is needed to cut 1990′s CO2 emissions by 80% in 2050 and Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf agreed on this point. The feeling was that the other panelists didn’t mind… At this point the Prime Minister concluded that the ambition for COP15 can be this -80% long-term objective following the precautionary principle to avoid worse impacts (than the ones presented in 2007 IPCC report) already hypothesized by new works. Overall a more direct communication between scientists and policy makers took place in this huge meeting: now it’s time for delegations to study and prepare the ground for brave steps forward to be made by the international community in Copenhagen’s crucial Conference of the Parties #15. Will we be able to navigate better our “ship” in the solar system during the over 200 rotations it will make before then?

Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding to Climate Change.

For further information on Climate Change please visit the Responding to Climate Change website –
http://www.rtcc.org

*Next event: Copenhagen, 24-26 May 2009. World Business Summit on Climate Change

Goes to the Animals: Vibration and Noise Control

Noise and vibration control is an issue that is much more common than one might originally think. In fact, it can creep up in the most unlikely of places. A good case in point is animal lab environments. Indeed, ALN Magazine recently ran an article titled “Noise & Vibration Considerations for the Animal Lab Environment.” Therein, the publication pointed out, “In the lab animal facility setting, noise, sound, and vibration affect the life cycle, interaction, and behavior of animals.” However, because “the impact of noise, sound, and vibration is a largely undocumented factor in the research,” it’s an often overlooked issue.

“If the sound pressure levels get too high,” the article continues, “there is a negative impact on animals and structures.” Vibration control, however, is just as important to these animals as noise control in that it “is a driving force behind radiated sound.”

Obviously, exposure to noise and vibration can be detrimental to an animal’s hearing, but the risks don’t stop there. “Sound and vibration can [also] have a physical impact on animals.” Even more startling, “Smaller animals are more susceptible to the affects of sound and vibration over time and will adapt or adjust accordingly. In some cases, mutations may result from exposure to undesirable conditions.”

How can animal laboratories mitigate these problems? The magazine notes, “The designers can control items that are constant disturbances that may greatly impact the animal community. Items within the designer’s control include ventilation system design, machinery vibration isolation, wall construction, lighting selection, and computer terminal placement.”

During the design process, animal labs may want to consult with a producer of custom-molded rubber and rubber-to-metal bonded parts for noise and vibration control. A world leader in the creation of rubber molding and rubber-to-metal bonded parts can help to create an environment that is not only safe for the animals being kept there but is also conducive to a healthy work environment for the people who are employed there.

The Vibro-Insulator line of isolators and mounts, in particular, aid in the control of noise, vibration, and shock. Selecting the right type of mount for an individual animal lab’s specific applications can prove tricky, however. That’s why consultation with an expert with reputable qualifications in rubber molding and rubber-to-metal bonding can be very beneficial.

Of course, once professional advice has been obtained, browsing the Vibro-Insulator catalog allows animal labs easy navigation so they can select the correct mount for their application. Rubber Vibro-Insulators come in a variety of styles and sizes to handle most vibration isolation problems. Most of the mount styles are designed to be used in either the compression or shear direction.
Selection of the proper Vibro-Insulator for a specific application boils down to a multi-step mathematical function that an expert can calculate for the lab or into which the lab’s design team can plug the following information:

1. The maximum load that must be supported.
2. The number of mounts supporting the load.
3. The frequency of the disturbing vibration.
4. Any restrictions on the size or style of the mount based on space limitations or assembly considerations.

Carmen Fontana is a Web Services Manager for Western Reserve Internet Services. Karman Rubber is a world leader in vibration control.

Solar Roads get small DoE contract, confidence to change the world

Solar roadways? Yeah, we’ve seen ‘em before, but we’ve yet to see America’s own Department of Energy give any one development company such a notable vouch of confidence. Just recently, the DoE handed over a $100000 contract to Solar …

Solar-panel roadway lights the way | DVICE

Solar-panel roadway lights the way, by Leslie Shapiro, for DVICE.

Solar farm could save Dauphin County money on electric bills …

Dauphin County officials hope to shave as much as 10 percent off monthly electric bills by backing the construction of a solar farm in Middle Paxton and West Hanover townships. The proposed 4500-panel array could become the state’s …

Trina Solar receives loan of $304 million to help expand capacity …

Trina Solar receives $304 million loanNEW YORK â?? Trina Solar Ltd., a solar power company, said on Tuesday it received a loan of $304 million to expand capacity at its east campus location over the next three years.

Solar Power from Space | New Hampshire Public Radio | Word of Mouth

Isaac Asimov was one of the first to dream up the idea of getting solar power from space in his short story “Reason.” Two engineers are assigned to a space station that uses microwave beams to supply solar energy to distant planets. …