Green Solutions for You!

To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?

To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?

Sometimes, simple acts such as going to the grocery store can turn into a moral dilemma. Is it better to choose the piece of organic fruit produced on the other side of the country or the non-organic version grown locally, 50 miles away? Are the benefits of chemical-free shampoo worth an extra 5 bucks a bottle? Will I really be able to enjoy a cheap chocolate bar knowing that the growers of the cocoa beans were likely not fairly compensated?

As much as I’d like to say that I always buy the product that is environmentally safe and sustainably produced, in reality, that’s not always the case. First, the sheer amount of information required to be able to distinguish between products is staggering. You need facts regarding environmental impact, transportation costs, and fair trade practices, to name just a few. And there are plenty of misinformation and greenwashing campaigns out there to steer you in the wrong direction.

Second, of course, there are times when the high cost of an ethically made product turns me off from buying it. Even consumers with the best of intentions have their breaking points.

The thing is, companies who go out of their way to implement sustainable practices endure a greater cost of production. Sure, they can sometimes capitalize on this by marketing to conscientious consumers who are willing to pay a bit more, but the fact remains that in today’s system, environmentally minded production is punished.

On the other hand, companies who move their factories (and jobs) to developing countries with lax environmental standards and cheap labor are able to make products at a fraction of the cost and undercut their competitors (while shipping materials and finished goods all around the world and adding to our greenhouse gas problems).

The way it’s set up, high environmental standards in one country drive companies to relocate in places where it’s permissible to pollute in order to compete in the marketplace. Chaco, the Colorado-based athletic sandal company, is a prime example of even a well-intentioned company being forced to follow suit to maintain competitive pricing on their products. In fact, 95% of all footwear in the world is produced in China, whose poor environmental regulation and sometimes dangerous environmental problems are well known.

With current talk about cap and trade emissions programs, this phenomenon may only get worse.

So how do we even the playing field and reward companies for good business practices?

When I think about this problem, I keep coming back to an idea I encountered in a casual conversation with a stranger while traveling. I can’t remember his face or his name, but his idea has stuck with me and festered in my mind for the better part of a year. His take was that putting the financial burden of environmental responsibility on the companies just doesn’t make sense for the reasons I’ve given above. In a global marketplace, it renders companies less competitive than those that operate free of environmental and labor regulations.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to put an “environmental impact” or “ecological footprint” tax on the product itself?

Ugh, a tax?

Initially, I didn’t warm to the idea either. But think about it: adding a tax proportionate to a product’s ecological and social footprint eliminates the cost advantage of irresponsible production. All those environmental costs that are currently not included in our economic system would be factored in and would increase the price of unsustainably made products.

This, in turn, would make moral dilemmas at the grocery store much easier. Is it more sustainable to buy distant, organic produce or local, non-organic produce? The tax-adjusted pricing should inform my decision. Can I afford the chemical-free shampoo? Yes, because the price of its chemical-laden competitors would be raised through the environmental impact tax and eliminate the cost advantage of choosing that product.

The money raised from the tax could fund its implementation and other sustainable programs such as public transportation (high speed rail, anyone?) and alternative energy. Perhaps it could even make a dent in our gaping budget deficit.

Won’t this cost me money?

You may be thinking, “Sure, that’s a good idea in concept, but that will raise my bills - grocery, clothes, everything.” Well, yes, that’s true. But maybe if we see the true cost of the products we casually consume, we can make a more informed decision about what is really necessary to our lives.

Additionally, programs such as this often have the greatest impact on the poor. But this could be compensated for by using some of the tax revenue for need-based assistance programs.

Regardless, running an economic system on the assumption of infinite resources is fundamentally flawed. Currently, environmental impacts such as air pollution, water pollution, and deforestation are not factored into the cost of a product: they are considered “externalities.”

These costs need to be included in the system in a way that does not punish those who engage in sustainable business practices. By taxing a product’s environmental impact, it levels the playing field for the consumer.

Disclaimer

Of course, I am not an economist or policy guru. I don’t know how to implement such a tax or if it would even be possible (though compared to creating a carbon trading market, perhaps it’s not that difficult). This is only the musing of a concerned, intelligent citizen trying to brainstorm ways to make our economic system fit within the bounds of our ecological constraints.

What do you think? Would such a tax have a beneficial effect on our production system? Join the conversation over at our website!

Jill Mueller is a conservation biologist, avid cyclist, and freelance writer. She has combined forces with a good friend and dietitian to start The Barefoot Badger, a blog promoting healthy, sustainable living. Check us out!

China 2035 Bigger Than USA

Becoming Energy Efficient to Save the Planet

Becoming Energy Efficient to Save the Planet

Save the planet! As Earth Day approaches April 22, what are you doing to get ready? Earth day is an event that started to bring attention to our environment. How we handle our garbage reflects our environment. Here are three tips to help save our environment.

• First, recycle. Recycling is taking some of our garbage and reusing it, directly or indirectly. To recycle a water bottle, you may reuse it again and again. But for gallon milk jugs or 2 liter soft drink bottles, you may opt to collect them and bring them to a recycling center. The recycling center will forward them on to a company that will melt them down and reprocess them.
• Second, shop efficiently. Try using what your Grandma used when she cleaned her house. Try using vinegar and baking soda. There are lots of sites that recommend natural cleaning products instead of chemicals. Also, buy those products in bulk. It reduces packaging which ends up in our garbage dumps and it may be cheaper, the more you buy, the cheaper it is.
• Third, conservation. Since I already have compact fluorescent light(CFL) bulbs installed, turning off the lights when I leave is the next best thing. My Mom always told me to turn off lights when I leave a room. She was right. Using more electricity only raises your electric bill. It will also increase your carbon footprint.

Education is a goal of Earth Day. Educating everyone from adults to children can get involved. Challenge your kids to come up with projects to bring attention to our environment. When we teach our next generation, we are saving our planet. But first, we must start ourselves. Be a steward of what God gave you. Become energy efficient by recycling and conservation. Our planet is worth it.

And now I would like to invite you to join me in learning energy saving tips you can do yourself to decrease your electric bill at http://energyconsciousconsultant.com Energy conservation should be out goal.

Fluoro-Solar Collectors

the Toronto Auto Show

the Toronto Auto Show

The Pine Beetle in Canada

For some time now, the extremely destructive Pine Beetle ( Dendroctonus ponderosae ) is ravaging huge areas of Canada’s forestlands and its destruction is so virulent, that it is leaving massive and easily visible scars across otherwise green foliage landscapes. In numerous areas where the pine beetle is active, various solutions for its eradication have been tried and some of these in themselves, are so toxic in nature that they would normally be classed as being a larger risk than the beetle they are attempting to destroy.

These beetles have an average life span of about one year and generally, their eggs are laid through the bark of a tree where they develop into larvae that stay under the bark all through the winter months. During the spring the larvae continue to feed under the bark and then they will change into pupae during the months of June and July. During the rest of the summer and into fall, the new adult pine beetles leave the infested tree through emergence holes they create and after drying themselves in the warm sunshine, they take off to mate and commence a new cycle by laying the next generation’s eggs under the bark of new trees. 

During the time they remain under the bark of a tree, they are known to transmit a fungus type substance that stains the sapwood of the tree a blue colour. Other than discoloration, this blue colouring appears to have no adverse affects on the actual structural integrity of the tree. However, we must not forget that the damage has already been done and like a rolling snowball, it gather momentum and range of spread with each summer that comes. These beetles prefer mature trees such as lodge pole pines which are considered mature after eighty years of growth and in the Province of British Columbia, current statistics show that there are three times more mature lodge pole pines than they had over ninety years ago. Hot and dry summers make the trees more stressed and thus more susceptible to attack and infestation by this ravenous little creature. Trees which have been attacked will turn red roughly one year after the infestation and then, between one and two years later the affected trees will turn grey and all of their needles will fall off.

Another interesting fact about these little guys is they do not like it too cold! Their eggs, larvae and pupae are very susceptible to very cold temperatures and if these temperatures remain below minus 35 Celsius for a prolonged period of maybe a week, then this will kill off the eggs, larvae, pupae and generally sizeable portions of the beetle population in that area of cold weather. This being said, unless we suddenly enter the start of a new ice age all across Canada, these sporadic cold spells are unfortunately not enough to rid us of this continually spreading plague of destruction.   Yes, there are action plans prepared and in place and yes, the Canadian Ministry of Forests and Range are really trying to get to grips with finding a solution to this costly problem but to date, the efforts and methodology being used has had little or no effect on the overall problem.

The good news is that an answer to this massive problem does exist and better still, it is an answer, which consists of no chemicals, no toxins, no poisons and no danger to either the forest or to the people who would apply the solution. This answer can be found right now in the form of a golden all natural organic fluid formulated around a cedar oil base. This fluid can totally eradicate the pine beetle and a few other nasty insects at the same time. It is not cheap but then again it is not as expensive as some of the other treatment that have been tried. It is non hazardous and will not harm the environment in any way and it is here and available right now. Unfortunately, for now it appears that here it must stay as the Ministry of Forests and Range are continuing their quest with what they feel they know best. Maybe someday, hopefully soon, they will realize that we can defeat this natural pest by using a totally natural substance.

Bob Littlejohn MBA BSc

Flashlight by Good Green Technologies

Flashlight by Good Green Technologies

Can You Be Clean, Green, and Legal?

You may have seen something on the news about Spokane, Washington where there is now a ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates. While this may seem to be an isolated case, there are actually several states (including the rest of the state of Washington) that will make dishwashing soap made with phosphates above a very small level illegal in 2010.

What is phosphate anyway and why is it used in dish washing soap?  Phosphate is an inorganic chemical that is a combination of salt and phosphoric acid.  Because it can clean things like hard water stains, and grease, phosphates are used in all kinds of things including dish washing soap. 

Why all the fuss?  Phosphate is a problem when it finds its way to freshwater rivers and lakes.  The phosphate encouraged the growth of algae which depletes the oxygen in these rivers and lakes, killing off fish and other wildlife. 

While there are green alternatives out there, deleting the phosphates from the dish washing soap can leave one unsatisfied with the resulting product-and a lot of dirty dishes.  Plus some of these green alternatives are pricier than their cheaper phosphorous counterparts.  This has caused people to travel outside their state to obtain contraband detergent from other states-which, of course, defeats the purpose of the bank in the first place. 

What should you look for in a green dish washing soap?  Are there green products that work as well?  While there is no direct substitute for phosphorous, but there are other substances that can be used.  How well they will work depends on a number of factors, perhaps the most important being the hardness of the water used for cleaning.

One ingredient that be used is a surfactants.  Surfactants are usually biodegradable and are used to provide cleaning power and increase the ability of the water to separate the soil from the dish. Anionic surfactants work well as detergents, but can be less than effective in hard water. Amphoteric surfactants are used for their foaming power and can often be found with anionic surfactants. There are other substitutes for phosphates, but these can be even more dangerous than the phosphates. They include nitrilotriacatic acid (NTA) and caustic alkaline chemicals (which are particularly dangerous when ingested-as sometimes happens with children).

It may take some trial and error to come up with the phosphate substitute that works best in your water.  It is unlikely that the ban on phosphates is going away, so it is better to start exploring the options now.  In the meantime, the soap manufacturers continue work on the perfect phosphate substitute, but there are some excellent alternatives out there.

“Dr. Robin”, the well known MLM Radio personality is and has built his “honorary” doctorate in the Network Marketing world and has had experience in numerous other network marketing companies. He is a nationally recognized expert in the network marketing business.Dr. Robin is the current host of his radio show, “Networking with the Blindguy” with up to 4.7 million listeners daily. http://drblindguy.com
Also time to help you with going GREEN. http://gobewisenow.com DR Robin will help you with going green with products that do work and are safe.

Your Second Hand Clothes: Recycle

Your Second Hand Clothes: Recycle

Landfill in the UK is becoming a huge problem. With the drop in the price of recycled products, the issue is what to do with all of the waste that we produce. The breakdown of waste in landfill sites creates huge amounts of the greenhouse gas methane. There are also many products that will not breakdown and will remain in the environment for ever with the potential to contaminate water supplies.

Traid, a charity specializing in the recycling of textiles reports that 900,000 tons of shoes and clothing are thrown away each year in the UK. Only 200,000 tons per year are recycled and the rest is dumped in landfill. The government estimates that similar amounts of between 550,000 and 900,000 tons of textiles are thrown away each year.

In addition to the problems of waste and landfill in the UK, there is also the consideration of the energy used and waste generated by the manufacture and distribution of clothing and textiles. Growth of cotton uses a huge amount of chemical pesticides and environmentally damaging cultivation methods. The manufacture of man made fabrics also has a huge environmental impact with. Demand for polyester the most widely used synthetic fabric has almost doubled in the last 15 years. The manufacture of polyester uses large amounts of crude oil and an energy-intensive process. It releases emissions including volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride, all of which can cause health problems for workers by causing or aggravating respiratory disease.

Second hand clothing is becoming more popular as people begin to recognise the real costs of fast fashion. Consumers are becoming more aware of their buying choices and ways that they can help the environment.

Finally, there is one more great reason to recycle second hand clothing. Just because you are fed up with a piece of clothing or it does not fit you nay more, it does not mean that it has no worth. You can make sure that the worth of your second hand clothing is realized by swapping it at a swishing party on a clothes swapping website, selling it or donating it to your favorite charity.

This article was written by Ceri Heathcote for posh-swaps.com, a website for swapping, buying and selling second hand and vintage clothing.

Clothes swapping and buying and selling second hand clothes is a great way to reduce the impact of fashion on the environment and to save money.

Bees dying Green Tech News

Do We Want Too Much?

Do We Want Too Much?

What can be done about this increasingly worrying contribution to global warming?

The most important options to reduce aircraft CO2 emissions are:

Changes in aircraft and engine technology; use of alternative fuels, such as (sustainably produced) biofuels; regulatory and operational measures such as improvements in air traffic management; economic measures such as inclusion of aircraft emissions in emission trading schemes.

But, as Giovanni Bisignani, manager of International Air Transport Association (IATA), stated: “Emissions trading schemes only make sense with efficient infrastructure. The IPCC estimates that there is 12% inefficiency in air traffic management globally: we produce up to 73 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year by aircraft flying inefficiently due to air traffic management limitations”. **

On a personal level we could ask ourselves especially in the developed world: “Do we really need to fly so frequently?” The use of telework, teleconference and video conference could be largely increased to plan work and meetings. Can’t the development of land and air transportation infrastructures be balanced better according to the real needs of people and businesses? Trains could connect cities better and more cheaply for example in Europe, where the prices are not competitive with those of many flights anymore (and night train services have been reduced if not cancelled).

Life styles do matter because if millions of people want to have cheap weekends in relatively close tourist locations, many flights are needed to satisfy their desires and consequently a lot of pollution is generated. Also, our per capita emissions could be cut also by reducing the “surplus” trips, by slowing down our life rhythms and enjoying more local attractions in our free time. Who knows? We could discover the “exotic” in our own neighborhoods without flying to the Caribbean Sea…

Furthermore the relationship between the costs and the environmental externalities (i.e. costs not included in the economy like health damages caused by pollution) needs to be considered as well: there are higher marginal impacts for short-distance flights that should be considered in prices paid by passengers.

All these political, technological and personal choices are some of the good examples needed by the developing countries to follow the 21st century’s Western society along a new sustainable path which looks like the only good alternative forward.

**”Talks to reduce aircraft global-warming emissions

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

Development Vs Rainforest Tropical

Development Vs Rainforest Tropical

I few weeks ago I came across an article about the deforestation situation of all the tropical rainforests. It talked about the main causes this beautiful places, origin to thousands of different life forms, are being damaged by people in so many different ways, among others: subsistence agriculture, colonization, tourism, and civilization development (savetherainforest). This latter caught my attention the most, because last week I went to my teak farm, and I got to see with my own eyes how a highway development affects our rainforest and trees so badly.

My teak farm is located about 1 hour drive from Panama City, it is located in the Colon province, home of Colon City (second biggest city in our country, Panama). Last year the government decided to build a long overdue highway connecting both cities (of course I am all for improving the quality of life of my countrymen) but I can not agree with the amount of deforestation that took place in order to build this highway.

Hundred of acres deforested in order to make way for four lanes that will bring better days to a lot of people, no doubt; but also brought a lot of disorder and chaos to a well established eco system that has being here long before us, and will continue to be here for (hopefully) thousands or millions of years after every single one of us has left this world.

Since development of cities is inevitable, specially today where commerce since to grow exponentially, cities expand rapidly, and the whole world seems to be at everybody s fingertips, we need better way of transport and communication, but could we also be more interested in both preserving and saving tropical rainforests and trees? The answer is a big OF COURSE! I would have loved to see our government promoting the planting of trees in different areas of our country in order to make up for the ones lost during the development of this highway, or during the construction of so many other infrastructures around the country. Also having more people come forward and speak up as energetic and belligerent they are about so many other problems we have on this planet. Maybe all we need are more ways to let people know about this, get them involved.

Since so much rainforest is lost every year, roughly about twice the size of the state of FLORIDA, this has become a problem for every single one of us earthlings, I think we need to get the word out, raise awareness and get people involved! Tropical Rainforest account for only 2% of land surface but through photosynthesis of trees they take massive amounts of CO2 emissions and make air clean and breathable again for every one of us. SO WE ALL NEED OUR RAINFOREST AND MORE TREES!!

Green Roof

Water Efficiency - The Resource Matrix Part 4 of 4 - The Illusions Behind Water Shortages

Water Efficiency - The Resource Matrix Part 4 of 4 - The Illusions Behind Water Shortages

The Resource Matrix IV: Layers

A new-age freak grinned at me last Friday and shared her relevation, “Everything’s energy. And everything’s connected. Don’t you get it, man?”

But you know, she’s right.

Otherwise, how would you explain melting polar ice and island nations disappearing under rising ocean levels? Randomness just doesn’t cut it as a solid excuse anymore.

A couple of years ago, some determined energy interests utilized hired hypnotic practitioners (several US senators and climate scientists) to declare to the public that there is no global warming. Early on, they tried introduce confusion into the debate with their term, “climate change,” which suggested that the environment changes randomly and there’s no proof that global warming is a serious trend.

Unfortunately for them, their efforts didn’t work, and ironically “climate change” is another term for “global warming.”

Have broken through that layer of illusion, the Do-Gooders (concerned scientists and environmental groups) and the Hybrids (for-profit companies that actually do some of those same things that someone who cares about you would do, rather than merely say, “We care about you,” which all companies say) have helped us gain greater awareness and provided with the means to change:

• “Global warming is real, and here’s a CFL lightbulb and more info.”
• “Water shortage is real, and it has nothing to do with long showers.”

Today, in our final article of The Resource Matrix, we peel back layer after layer to get to the core and break the code that sends the whole system crashing down like a ton of bricks. And what you find will surprise — even shock you!

Let’s begin with the first layer:

Layer 1:
the illusion that non-sustainable costs less than sustainable

We began The Resource Matrix by explaining that economics comes out of 18th century political economy, and that political economy itself comes out of moral philosophy, and this moral philosophy apparently had room for colonialism, a fancy term for the answer to the eternal question: “How can I get that for free?”

Within economics and its moral background is the concept of the “free good:” 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.

To sustain the illusion that products that pollute the air and water are cheaper than those that don’t create a mess, the scroundels just pay the referees fat sacks of hush money. “What foul? Play ball!”

Layer 2:
the illusion of separation

The next layer we peel away is the seeming “illusion of separation.” The grinning new-age freaky girl has it right again: “Everything’s connected.”

Global warming is not a fossil fuel issue. It’s a consumption issue that involves insane water policies that dictate growing cotton in the Egyptian desert, installing the world’s highest-shooting fountain in the desert city of Phoenix, Arizona to run 12 hours out of every 24, draining rivers to grow rice for exports, polluting the same rivers in India that people drink from with toxic chemicals used for dyeing cotton and wondering why nearly every single person in town died. And on and on ad nauseum.

Layer 3:
it’s up to government and industry to bring change

In the commercial marketplace, you vote with your feet. If you’re sitting in a movie theater and the film sucks, you stand up because you can’t take it any longer. And walk out. Just remember who the lousy director or actor was so you’re not doomed to repeat your history of lousy film choices.

If we leave it to government and industry to form a partnership to solve water usage issues, it will be virtual warfare, as we described in our last article (The Resource Matrix part 3 of 4: the coming cold water waters):

In this game, you start as leader of a country which has certain industries, a growing population, and dwindling water resources. Your objective is to maintain or enhance the lifestyle of your people by shifting water use to other countries in order to prevent internal strife and your eventual overthrow and death by coup d’etat.

And as you read, this game has no winners. It’s not sustainable.

Rather than blindly obeying the on-screen instructions (”Please pick a COUNTRY, PLAYER NAME, and Press the START button to begin now.”), it’s best never to press the START button at all.

Instead of giving your power over to the Government/Industry Gamers, vote with your feet.

Like doing business with those who conduct themselves in line with your own beliefs (cruelty-free products manufacturer, member of your own religious faith), you can make certain individual decisions consciously.

In certain cases, you make conscious decisions that consciously support certain businesses:

• retailers (and the manufacturers) of compact fluorescent bulbs
• shade-grown coffee
• cruelty-free health and beauty products

In certain cases, you make conscious decisions that unconsciously reduce support for certain businesses:

• using daylight instead of manufactured light sources reduces coal production and its polluting effects, in addition to saving energy

How about water? What choices do you have? Here’s possible near-future scenes:

Online resumes now include diet preferences as an indicator of personal water footprint and employment site search tools include diet as a filter.

Business headlines: “Demand for beef-free Hindu programmers causes short squeeze in software development market - low-waterfoot print computer geeks ask for, get 25% more than meat-eating peers” and “All-vegan employee company Sustainatrix International goes public in huge stock offering - market value of $150 billion confirms validity of sustainability in capital and financial modeling”

The Matrix and Vanilla Sky:
Not what it seems

In The Matrix, Morpheus explains that “the 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.”

In the 2001 Tom Cruise psychological thriller Vanilla Sky, built layer upon layer of seeming reality, Cruise’s handsome character enjoys the charmed rich life, then gets into an accident that mars his face, over which he needs to wear a mask. Eventually distraught, he goes out drinking, and ends up literally in the gutter to sleep it off.

He wakes to continue his life in an sequence of odd experiences. Finally remembering some repressed memories, he gets help and peels back one layer of the illusion: all his “experiences” since landing in the gutter have been a dream.

Trying to cope with his shattered worldview, he peels back another layer: worse, he’s been “dead” for 150 years and in a state of suspended animation.

And yet, the movie itself is not what it seems. Vanilla Sky was a Hollywood idle rich American kid adaptation of the 1997 Spanish original entitled Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes) and also co-starred Penelope Cruz in her same role.

I introduced this four-part series by explaining that:

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 take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

I’ve shown you how deep the rabbit hole goes, and now you can wake in your bed and choose to continue to live like Tom Cruise, or you can break the code.

To break the code that creates the graphical user interface and see the illusion for what it really is, you need only do one thing, as repeated by Tom Cruise’s alarm clock each morning in Vanilla Sky:

Open your eyes.

And see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you.

Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .

To your green, brighter future,

Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19

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

KETV News

Go Green With Natural Finishes - environmental friendly finishes

Go Green With Natural Finishes - environmental friendly finishes

Finishes are coatings that are  applied to the external and inside surfaces of walls to protect them from the elements and from wear and tear.  They also improve the appearance of the structure and are used to enhance the design of rooms.

Petroleum, our main source of oil-based wood finishes and paint, is a non-renewable resource.  There are now paints and finishes on the market that are derived from a renewable resource, which  in a small way, helps to reduce dependence on oil, and  contributes to a more sustainable world.

The basis for these products is whey, which is a product of cheese making, and which has a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).  This increases the burden on waste treatment facilities, and can also pollute our natural water sources.  In the last ten years, this by-product has been used for many new purposes, one of which is natural wood finishes.

When choosing paints for your decorating, use the low or no VOC (volatile organic compound) paints. For hundreds, no, thousands of years, earth, clay and lime have been used, both in hot and cold areas of the world.  And now this knowledge is being readapted for contemporary use. If you do any redecorating or new building, it makes sense to contribute to having green, healthy surroundings.

Low and no VOC paints have less smell and less impact on air quality.  EPA studies have shown that indoor air quality is up to five times more toxic than outdoors, mainly because of toxic emissions from paint and finishes. This particularly affects anyone with allergies, asthma, or chemical sensitivities. With the new “green” paints, there will be lower contamination of landfills, groundwater, and the ozone.

Switching will not cost you more.  Cleanup is easily done with soap and water, instead of toxic chemicals, and brushes can easily be cleaned and reused.  The paint is still washable, and is far less harmful to you, your pets, and the environment.

Lisa is a freelance writer with a specialty in Internet content and SEO articles. She has written thousands of articles, hundreds of ebooks and thousands of website pages and related content. She has also authored her own books and works as a consultant to other writers, Internet marketers and Internet businesses.

Professional wordsmith for hire: gamer, wife, mother, entrepreneur, published poet, co-owner of game guides company (http://www.liti4.com), public speaker and Internet business consultant. You can learn more or follow Lisa’s blog from her website: http://www.freelancewriter4hire.com

Going Green-6

Going Green-6

USA - China - A G2 For Climate and Economy?

China appears to view global warming as an economic issue, Obama’s administration is primarily focused on the current economic crisis as well, but climate change is also a serious crisis and a threat to the world’s economic system itself with all its present and predicted impacts. Don’t these global problems require an integrated economic and environmental strategy? The hypothesized summit between Barack Obama and the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, could be an important step to accelerate urgent actions needed both to face the global economic downturn and to build a solid climate pact.

China, in its last 5-year plan, sets targets to reduce national energy intensity (energy used per unit of GDP) by 20% between 2006 and the end of 2010. According to Deborah Seligsohn, China Program Director on Climate, Energy and Pollution of the World Resources Institute, this target seems to be realizable given their latest remarkable record (-1.8% in 2006, -3.7% in 2007, and -4.2% in 2008.) Last month Hillary Clinton met experts from the Asia Society and the Pew Centre for Climate Change that together wrote a report that could help the creation of this US-Chinese partnership on climate change. But the good examples from China, although not directly referred to CO2 emissions, and Obama’s ambitious plan on energy and climate will need decisions from other 13 countries (or federations such as the EU), including Russia, India, Japan to get 80% of world’s emissions “under control”. Nowadays the other 173 countries account for about 20% of total CO2 emissions, but population increase and old development patterns could dangerously increase their “pollution share” in the future: every nation will be then required to cut the CO2, but large amount of money are needed to do so. Where will our leaders take Dollars, Yuan or Euros these days?

Next steps: -264 days to COP15:
Two events along the path to Copenhagen will take place in Bonn from March 29th to April 8th: the 7th session of the AWG-KP (Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex 1Parties under the Kyoto Protocol) and 5th session of the AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention). As we can read on the UNFCCC website “this is the first of three planned negotiating sessions before COP 15 in December” and can hopefully prepare a good ground for delegations and political leaders to decide upon.

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

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Luca_Marazzi