Declare War on Oil

A must read...

http://www.newsmax.com/ruddy/oil_dependence/2008/03/13/80091.html?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=shoot3

Bush Personally Intervened With EPA Rules

The Washington Post is reporting today that..."EPA officials initially tried to set a lower seasonal limit on ozone to protect wildlife, parks and farmland, as required under the law. While their proposal was less restrictive than what the EPA's scientific advisers had proposed, Bush overruled EPA officials and on Tuesday ordered the agency to increase the limit, according to the documents."

Intervention by executive officials with sound science and research done within the EPA is becoming a trend. Last month, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson overruled the findings of his scientists to block California's request for stricter pollution rules. This was an unprecedented political interruption by an appointee of the President. Johnson's decision left California and EPA scientists bewildered. His explanation was vague and based on a political judgment rather than the results of scientific research.

Now, it seems the President is taking a similar role in EPA decisions by tweaking improved ozone limits to the benefit of his corporate friends. The EPA has two separate ozone restriction categories. First, there is a public welfare standard for minimizing long-term health impacts from high ozone levels. Second, there is the public health standard which sets limits on actual ozone levels in the short-term. Before the President intervened, the EPA had planned to make the first standard stricter to avoid long-term "adverse affects on agricultural crops, trees in managed and unmanaged forests, and vegetation species growing in natural settings."

The last-minute decision by the President to change the EPA's planned standards change created a lot of confusion for many in the Executive Branch. An EPA brief filed with the Supreme Court included the improved standards and had to be quickly amended by administration lawyers to avoid confusing the Court. A press conference scheduled to announce the improved standards was delayed so new talking points could be created.

In addition, President Bush's intervention may be a violation of the law. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council's reading of the Clean Air Act, Congress delegated its rule making authority to the EPA in cases like these, not to the President.

Read the full Washington Post story HERE.

Xeriscaping Your Yard

When I was a kid, my father spent hours every weekend working on the yard. He watered it, fertilized it, put pesticides on it, cut it, bagged the clippings, put weed killer on it, etc. etc. etc.

What my dad didn't know was that he was creating a greener yard but not a greener planet. He wasted barrels of water trying to keep the lawn moist in the Florida summer heat. The toxic chemicals from his pesticides, fertilizers and weed killers ended up in our aquifer, lakes and rivers. The gas he burned in the lawn mower during the hours he spent riding from one side of the property to the other contributed to global warming.

It wasn't exactly his fault though. For generations the symbol of one's self-respect and success was a beautiful green yard. In the process of winning the neighborhood's "best-yard" prize many people put very dangerous chemicals into our atmosphere like DDT, nitrogen oxide, and heptachlor.

Now that many cities are struggling with dwindling water supplies, home-owners are taking a second look at their yards. There are ways to have a beautiful landscape in front of your home while conserving water and protecting the planet. Xeriscaping is a concept that was created by the Denver Colorado Water Department in 1981 to help local residents conserve water. The concept is still very relevant today.

Essentially, the idea behind xeriscaping is to minimize the use of thirsty grass and to maximize the use of rocks, localized plants and cacti.

The best way to xeriscape your yard is to identify the area you really want to be covered in grass. Perhaps that patch along the road or an area closer to the home. Once you have zeroed in on the new grass area, divide it from the rest of the yard with attractive stones or short fencing. Pull up the now unnecessary grass area.

Next, decide what type of cover you want for the rest of the yard. Many people choose organic mulch or lava rocks. There are plenty of options that suit your needs.

Once you have covered the rest of your yard with an attractive layer of grass alternative, ask your local nursery for assistance choosing plants that grow locally. These plants are accustomed to the soil and weather in your community and will thrive without additional water or fertilizers. Often, cacti and wild grasses are recommended by nurseries because they require little upkeep, are inexpensive and can cover a wide swath of yard. Cacti can also grow attractive flowers in the Spring and Summer months. Strategically place these plants around your yard to provide the look of a carefully landscaped area.

Finally, fill in empty areas of the yard with big colorful stones or potted trees. You can pot small exotic trees and locate them around your yard where they are easy to keep watered.

If you'd like to learn more, Colorado has put together a xeriscaping website with pictures and tips.

McCain's Environmentalist VP

John McCain is more of an environmentalist than most Republicans. He is in the Schwarzenegger camp when it comes to curbing global warming and ending reliance on foreign oil. Lately, McCain has shied away from his environmentalist roots in order to appeal to a more business friendly conservative base. Hopefully that is a trend he will avoid in the very near future.

One sign that McCain is still an environmentalist at heart is his considerations for a running mate. So far, two names have been circulated that give hope to those in the environmental community who fear a Republican win in November.

The first name often circulated as a potential running mate is Florida Governor Charlie Crist. I am a Floridian who has been transplanted to Washington, DC. The environment in Florida is a very important issue because the economy there relies on tourists flocking to clean, beautiful beaches. Also, Florida is home to the Everglades National Park, a very sensitive ecosystem that has been abused for years. Not to mention that as the "Sunshine State" Florida has a great position as a leader on solar power. So what are Crist's environmental accomplishments to date?

• Crist opposed and halted the planned development of 3 new coal power plants in Florida, including 1 located in the Everglades.
  
• Crist has signed a moratorium on coal power plant development.
• Under Crist's leadership Florida is planning on building the world's largest solar-thermal power plant.
• Crist supported & signed a law expanding restoration of the Everglades ecosystem to include Lake Okeechobee and areas farther North.
  
• Crist has increased regulations on farmers growing crops along the Everglades with tougher wastewater residual standards, faster development of total maximum daily load standards for the Caloosahatchee, and a multi-agency plan for cleaner agriculture practices.
• The 2007-08 budget he signed includes $200 million for Everglades restoration.
• Crist coordinated and hosted a Climate Summit in Florida to begin a dialog among environmental and business leaders on how to address the challenge of global climate change.
  
• Crist has agreed to cut Florida's greenhouse gas emissions by 10% in just 7 years and by 80% by 2050.
  
• Crist has pledged to make the state's buildings and operations more environmentally friendly.
  
• Read an interview with Gov. Crist on his environmental record HERE

Another name mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain is Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty is the Chairman of the National Governors Association and a conservative Republican in a state that leans Democratic. So what are Pawlenty's green credentials?

• Pawlenty is a proponent of clean, renewable energy. In his role as head of the National Governors Association, he has presented state standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• He proposed and approved creation of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program that conserves 120,000 acres of land surrounding environmentally sensitive water bodies.
• Pawlenty helped to create the Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge.
• Pawlenty created four million acres of "certified sustainable forests," the nationals largest area of such forest land.
• Pawlenty directed lottery funds to the Natural Resources Trust Fund.
• Pawlenty created a wetland monitoring program for prairie wetlands.
• Pawlenty approved laws that reduced mercury emissions from Minnesota's power plants.
  
• Pawlenty supported the "Community Based Energy Development Tariff" that helps fund development of local wind and clean energy sources along with a goal of 800 megawatts of locally created renewable electricity by 2010.
• Pawlenty has proposed a constitutional amendment dedicating some state sales tax for improved water monitoring, cleaning and remediation.
• Pawlenty signed a law that makes it more difficult for ATV riders to drive through forests. Forests must be independently evaluated to ensure they are able to handle the impact of ATVs before riders can enter the forests legally.

If you want to learn more about John McCain's environmental platform and policies you can click HERE and HERE. And make sure to sign the petition urging McCain to run a carbon neutral presidential campaign.

A funny video of Bush & McCain

President Obama's Environmental Policies

As the Democratic election chugs along, it provides observers the opportunity to learn as much as possible about each candidate. In fact, by the time this thing is over, we'll know more than we want about Obama & Clinton (i.e. that Obama looks good in his underwear)

The most important thing to glean from all of this information is what type of President these candidates would be if they were elected. Obviously the concern on this blog is what environmental policies the future President would support.

Barack Obama's proposed policies have been explored in great detail in this blog in the past. He & Hillary are not far apart on almost all of their plans. Both support cap & trade emissions programs, 80% renewable energy by 2050, investing in renewable energy development, etc. There are some differences, however, in the way they have voted in the past and the loyalties they have formed.

You probably know by now that Barack Obama supported the 2005 Energy Bill written by Dick Cheney and his big oil lobbyist friends. Hillary & McCain didn't. What you probably do not know is that Obama has also co-sponsored a bill that creates federal loan guarantees, tax breaks and other subsidies for expansion of coal power plants.

The bill was originally created to encourage development of "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel," which is supposed to be a cleaner way of getting energy from coal. The Argonne National Laboratory, which is run by the Department of Energy, says that turning coal into liquid fuel yields 125% more carbon dioxide than producing diesel fuel and 66% more than gasoline. In other words, this method of burning coal is still pathetically bad for our environment. The only incentive in this bill to move to "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel" was more tax breaks and no mandates, leaving the coal companies to pollute unrestricted.

Why would Obama co-sponsor a bill that gives money to increased coal plant development without demanding lower greenhouse gas emissions? Some of it has to do with the fact that Illinois is a large coal producing state. He has also supported the use of ethanol, a "wannabe" green energy source, because of Illinois' powerful agricultural lobby.

After the environmental community and MoveOn.org attacked Obama for co-sponsoring the pro-coal bill, he backed off with this statement..."Senator Obama supports ... investing in technology that could make coal a clean-burning source of energy. However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20 percent less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels."

Barack Obama is also a big supporter of nuclear energy. He believes that nuclear energy should be a part of America's "energy portfolio" because it does not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Of course, nuclear energy creates waste that must be stored in a safe place for many many generations. Obama has received thousands in campaign contributions from the Illinois nuclear power company Exelon. In addition, David Axelrod, Obama's Campaign Manager, has served as a consultant to Exelon in the past.

My hope is that President Obama would be the change agent he promises to be on the issue of renewable energy. Relying on dirty 18th century energy technology just because it can be made slightly cleaner is not the right direction for America. Furthermore, relying on a source of energy that creates extremely dangerous and everlasting waste should not be an option. Our next President must treat renewable energy sources like legitimate options, not side projects or novelties.

Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who is paying for carbon offsets. Sign the petition to tell McCain and Obama to do the same.

Study: Cut Carbon to Survive

We've all known for a while that unless we take dramatic action to curb the amount of carbon released into our atmosphere, global climate change will cause cataclysmic resource shortages. A new study published in the Washington Post today says we only have a few decades to totally cut carbon emissions to stop these shortages.

The scientists who wrote the report represent the United States, Canada, Germany and other industrialized nations. They warn that reducing carbon emissions will not be enough. Using advanced computerized models, the scientists have predicted that by mid-century, the continued release of greenhouse gases will mean water supplies world-wide will begin drying up. Specifically, water supplies in impoverished nations in Africa and South America will be in danger.

In order to stop the current warming trend, all nations will have to cut their use of fossil fuels by 100%. The Post article discusses the political will it will take to accomplish this feat by discussing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's energy plans, which cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. The U.S. Senate will vote in June for a bill that cuts greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2050. None of these plans accomplish the 100% cut that is apparently needed. In nations like India and China, it will be even harder to reach 100% cuts. Plus, the Senate and the candidate plans are just plans, they do not guarantee we will reach their stated levels.

While we wait for our elected officials to figure out how to curb our carbon emissions, there are things you can do to reduce your own contributions to global warming. Many electrical companies offer their customers the option to switch to renewable energy for their homes. If you cannot choose renewable energy, try to reduce your energy usage as much as possible. Also, take every opportunity to plant trees in your community. Trees absorb greenhouse gases. Use public transportation when its available too. Avoid gas-guzzling automobiles and keep your car's tires pumped-up and its engine fine-tuned so it gets the best possible gas mileage.

To read the full Washington Post article go HERE

To sign the Carbon Neutrality petition urging the 2008 Presidential Candidates to have zero carbon emissions, go HERE

God Wants You to Recycle

Just when you had finally memorized the 7 Deadly Sins, the Vatican goes and creates seven more. Recognizing that individual actions have an impact on society, the Catholic Church has created seven new deadly sins that forbid behavior which will negatively impact the world we live in.

The new sins include carrying out experiments on humans, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy, taking drugs, etc. According to the church, these new deadly sins differ from venial sins in that venial sins only impede a soul's pursuit of moral good while deadly sins bring about eternal death if unrepented for.

Two of the new deadly sins that are particularly related to this blog are: polluting the environment and genetic modification. I'm not an expert on the spiritual consequences associated with committing these sins, but I am an expert on the environmental consequences associated with committing them.

To help you get right with God, let me give you a few pointers...

• Recycle: Make it easy on yourself and get small containers for your plastic/glass, paper, etc. As they fill up, dump them into the larger outdoor containers. Try to recycle everything you can.
  
• Use Less Electricity: Your home is likely powered by coal, a dirty source of power that contributes hugely to global warming. Use florescent lightbulbs, take shorter showers, cut power to unused electronics, clean the refrigerator coils, etc.
• Avoid Toxic Chemicals: Use natural cleaning products in your home like vinegar and lemon juice. Use phosphate free dish washing and clothes washing soap. Use natural fertilizers and pesticides for your yard.
  
• Shop Locally: Buy groceries that are organically grown locally. Visit your farmers' market on weekends to buy straight from the source.
• Reduce Plastic: Bring cloth bags with you to the grocery store. Buy biodegradable bags for garbage and animal waste. Take plastic grocery bags back to the store for recycling.
  

If you follow these tips and genuinely try your best to prevent environmental damage, my guess is that your soul will be just fine.

Investing in Green Energy Stocks

Almost every single blog entry on Green Piece Blog talks about how you can save money while working to reduce your impact on the environment. Now that its clear our energy future will be clean, renewable energy sources, you might be able to MAKE money saving the environment too.

In 2004, investments in renewable energy development reached $30 billion according to the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. That investment went to the creation of 4% of the world's energy, all from wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. The world's fastest growing source of energy is grid-connected solar photovoltaic which grew by 60% between 2000 and 2004. Wind energy is the second fastest growing source of the world's energy, growing by 40% in 2004.

With all of this expansion of renewable energy, how do you get a piece of the action? Use Jackson Robinson as your investment model. In 1983, Robinson created an investment company that offered its clients a portfolio of environmentally friendly investments. Over the past 3 years, his fund has earned a 9.91% annualized return, beating its benchmark, the Russell 2000 Growth Index, by over 4%.

In a March 3rd interview with Forbes, Robinson said that his first step was to strip away stocks that were detrimental to people's lives like weapons and tobacco. He divided everything else into dirty, clean and green companies. Clean companies weren't having a positive or negative impact on the environment and green companies were specifically focused on enhancing the planet's health. The clean and green companies were the ones he invested in.

At a time when the market seems to be swinging back and forth on a daily basis, Robinson says that green investments make sense. The market in general is currently stagnant. There is continued growth, however, in the areas of solar & wind energy as well as in organic & healthy food.

One of the renewable energy companies that Robinson specifically mentions in the Forbes interview is First Solar, which earned a 686.3% increase in earnings and almost a quadrupling of sales in the fourth quarter of last year. He says that First Solar is unique among its solar power peers in that it doesn't rely on silicon to produce the panels and silicon is an expensive, dwindling resource.

If you would like to read more of the interview you can go HERE

If you would like to see 10 green stocks go HERE

And for more information on investing in green energy from the Motley Fool go HERE

A "Must Read" On Coal Production

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/Environment/article/306165

Planes vs Trains vs Automobiles - What is Greener

In America, there are many ways to get from here to there. For years, the single most popular mode of transportation for most Americans was the car. As gas prices rise to that terrifying $4.00/gallon threshold, many are beginning to look for cheaper alternatives for business trips and family vacations.

Cost shouldn't be the only consideration when planning your next trip. You should also think about the environmental impact of your chosen mode of transportation. There are many websites with useful calculators that allow you to compare carbon emissions of different carriers to decide how to make your travels more eco-friendly.

The best calculator I could find online is at the Carbon Footprint website. Using their calculator, I did a quick comparison of a plain vs. train vs. bus vs. automobile ride to determine which choice is the greenest. I also did a comparison of costs to determine which would be the cheapest and travel time to see which would be the fastest. Check it out..

• On a trip from my home of Washington, DC to Boston, MA and back, the financial, environmental and time costs associated with each mode of transportation are:

• Automobile: I based this calculation on the average gas mileage of an American automobile, which is 21 MPG . According to Google Maps, the distance between Boston and DC is 441 miles (so 882 total miles). The average cost of a gallon of gasoline is $3.13, according to Energy Information Administration.
  --- For a round-trip drive to Boston from DC and back, the carbon emissions are 0.368 Tons of CO2. For gas alone, the trip would cost about $131.46 and would take about 8 hours each way.

• Train: I looked at the price of an Amtrak ticket, leaving on a Friday (March 7th at noon) and coming back on a Sunday (March 9th at 3:00 PM).
  --- For a round-trip train ride to Boston from DC and back, the carbon emissions are 0.085 Tons of CO2. The train ticket would cost about $200 and would take about 8 hours each way.

• Plane: Using Hotwire.com and the dates of March 7-9 (Fri-Sun), from BWI Airport to Logan Airport.
  ---- For a round-trip airplane ride to Boston from DC and back, the carbon emissions are .242 Tons of CO2. The plane ticket would cost about $220 and would take about 3 hours each way.

• Bus: Using Greyhound.com and the dates of March 7-9 (Fri-Sun)
  --- For a round-trip bus ride to Boston from DC and back, the carbon emissions are .126 Tons of CO2. The bust ticket would cost about $100 and would take about 9 hours each way.
  

So the rankings for carbon emissions, cost and time (from best to worst) are as follows:

• Emissions: Train, Automobile, Bus, Plane

• Cost: Bus, Car, Train, Plane

• Time: Plane, Train, Car, Bus
  

Panasonic Develops Plastic to Gas Recycling

One of the worst consequences of our electronic age is the dumping of electronic waste (e-waste) into landfills. Most of the televisions, computers and other equipment that is thrown in the garbage contains toxic chemicals and metals like lead and carcinogens. E-waste doesn't biodegrade and just sits for generations, slowly leaking out very harmful pollutants.

Panasonic has developed a system for reducing the harmful effects of e-waste. Plastic surrounding wires or components is converted into gas so recycling companies can extract the copper and metal for new devices. In the past, this plastic prevented access to metals, causing many parts to be discarded. Now, not only can we reuse these metals but we can also keep more plastics from entering landfills.

I don't understand how this is all possible, I'll paste Panasonic's technical explanation below. However, I do understand that the plastic becomes a non-toxic gas that contains no carbon dioxide and is safe. This sounds like a great step for the destruction of plastic waste and for the recycling of electronics.

The system may not me immediately available, but if you would like to recycle some of those old computers, monitors, TV's, and VCR's sitting around the house, find out how by going HERE.

"The new recycling method combines Kusatsu Electric's non-incineration plastic disposal technology using TiO2 and Panasonic's high grade materials recovery technology that is used by Panasonic to recycle old home appliances. The method uses unique mixing and carrier systems that allow plastics to contact the catalyst efficiently for gasification, leaving the valuable metals. As the catalytic reaction of TiO2 generates heat to promote gasification, an additional heating source is not required in the process. The method uses cooling water to maintain temperature (500°C) for optimal catalytic reaction. The subsequent heated water from the process can be used for other purposes. Hydrogen chloride produced during the gasification process of vinyl chloride is neutralized with lime."

Whole Foods Ditches Plastic & So Can You

Whole Foods has decided that it will no longer use plastic bags to package your groceries at the check-out lane. Their reason for doing this is simple. Plastic bags are bad for the earth.

Why? Plastic bags are made using petroleum. You probably know that burning petroleum releases carbon dioxide into the air. It is believed that the release of carbon dioxide is the cause of global climate change. Petroleum is also difficult to obtain and requires political relationships with nefarious nations. Plastic bags do not break-down in the dump and the cost of recycling them is actually more than the cost of manufacturing a new one.

Whole Foods isn't the first group to quit using plastic bags. The Chinese government passed a ban last year because of the environmental damage and lifespan of plastic bags. Other countries and some of our states have considered a similar ban.

Whole Foods will begin cutting out plastic bags on April 22nd in commemoration of Earth Day. To prepare, begin collecting any cloth bags you might have around your house. If you don't have any cloth bags or if you'd like some bags specifically for grocery shopping, you can buy some HERE. Keep some bags in your trunk, at work, and maybe in your purse.

You will feel great knowing you are reducing our country's reliance on oil and helping to keep plastic bags out of garbage dumps or nature. Plus, cloth bags are more reliable and tough. So when Whole Foods makes the change-over on April 22nd, make sure you do too!

Sign the McCain/Obama Carbon Neutral Petition

I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but neither Senator John McCain nor Senator Barack Obama have made their campaigns carbon neutral. What does this mean? This means that neither candidate is investing any of the millions of dollars their campaigns have raised to offset the pollution from their many plane and bus rides.

By purchasing carbon offsets, Obama and McCain would mitigate their campaign's greenhouse gas emissions by funding renewable energy research. This could result in more American jobs, improved national security, and a healthier planet.

Both Senators have proposed "Cap & Trade" emissions programs in the past that operate in a very similar way to carbon credit markets. Why would they propose a program that they won't participate in themselves? Its time for these candidates to stop just talking the talk and to start walking the walk on real environmental policy reform.

Please sign the petition to urge Senators John McCain and Barack Obama to make their campaigns carbon neutral. Environmental leadership isn't just a campaign slogan, its a principle that must be followed now.

An Earth-Friendly, Free, Relaxing Home Manicure

I've never had a manicure before. I have, however, walked by the manicure shop before and been struck by the overwhelming scent of chemicals radiating from the place. Inhaling all those chemicals and flushing them down drains must be bad for you and the environment. What if you want to have a manicure in the comfort of your own home, free of the stench of toxic chemicals?

It is possible to give yourself a great manicure at home that is "green." First, put on some relaxing music. Then, pour a glass of that organic wine you just purchased. Finally, follow the directions from Care2.com below.

• File your nails, going in one direction only. (No sawing!)

• Wash your hands, then soak them in warm water, buttermilk, or organic apple cider vinegar. The acids in the buttermilk or vinegar will help to slough off dead skin cells.

• Apply a cold-pressed oil (olive oil will do fine) into your cuticles, near the half-moon shape you can see at the base of your nails. Use the blunt end of an orange-wood stick to gently push the cuticles back from the nails.

• Dry your hands. Using a fine pumice stone or fine-grit sandpaper block, sand the tops of your nails to get rid of any ridges. Smooth the nail tops with a smoothing file and finish with a buffing chamois. Your nails will be amazingly shiny, almost as if you were wearing clear nail polish.

• Use a moisturizing cream or lotion to massage your hands and nails.

Gray Wolves No Longer Endangered?

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is under constant political pressure by those who believe that it places more emphasis on protecting plants & animals than on encouraging property development & economic gains. (If you read my piece on Ecosystems Services, you can probably figure out my position in this debate)

With that said, every now and then, we hear a success story about the return of a species from the brink of extinction thanks to the ESA that impresses even the most hardened cynics. The survival of the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies is just such a success story.

In the beginning of the 20th century, gray wolves were seeing their habitat destroyed and encroached upon by humans. These humans brought with them farm animals like sheep and chickens that seemed like easy prey to the natural predatorial instincts of wolves. Eventually, humans began hunting wolves in an effort to diminish their population and protect the farm animals.

The gray wolf population became so low that it appeared the species was going to become extinct. As a result, the wolf was placed on the Endangered Species List and its habitat underwent the legal protection that comes with this placement. In addition, the U.S. Department of Interior began plans for reintroducing displaced wolf populations back into their natural habitat.

Reintroduction of a species into a habitat where its numbers have dwindled is a controversial act. In the case of the gray wolf, it was especially controversial. The area where the wolves would be introduced is now home to thousands of acres of cattle ranches. The ranchers did not appreciate natural predators being parachuted onto their land. As a compromise, Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental organization, agreed to reimburse cattle ranchers for any of their animals that were killed or harmed by the wolf reintroduction.

After a 13-year restoration effort, the gray wolf populations have reached a sustainable level. Unfortunately, the threats to this species still exist. In fact, it could be argued that taking them off the Endangered Species List will put them at high risk to become endangered again. However, the ESA is meant to serve as a safety net, not a perpetual force field. Hopefully all parties involved will make a new effort to work together for a shared interest in maintaining a natural balance.

Wine With Shades of Green

Who doesn't love a nice glass of wine while sitting with friends after a long work week? For many, there is great anxiety associated with choosing the right wine when having guests over. So many pieces go into consideration: region, vintage, variety, winemaker, etc. I bet there is a piece you have overlooked on many occasions when choosing the perfect wine; the green piece.

I'm not trying to make your wine selection process more difficult by adding another factor for consideration. As a matter of fact, I'm trying to make things easier. A "green" wine will be a conversation starter and might encourage others to mimic your environmental consciousness.

What should you look for when choosing an eco-friendly wine?

• Buy Local: Buying local is a good idea whether you are purchasing wine, food, or anything else. It cuts down on shipping waste and fuels small businesses. In the context of wine, a local wine can be less expensive. In addition, many wine shop owners have more experience with local wines and can provide more thorough reviews than they can with non-local wines. Even stores like Whole Foods sell wines from your community. If you want to meet the wine-makers themselves, local wines offer the opportunity to tour the vineyard or ask questions directly at a farmers' market.
  

• Buy Organic: Buying organic wine has become a little more confusing than it use to be. The USDA recently released standards for organic label products. For a wine to be truly organic, it must be made from organically grown grapes AND be free of sulfates. Very few wines meet both standards. You should look for wines from grapes grown organically because this cuts down on pesticides and toxic fertilizers that infect ground-water supplies and poison lakes and rivers. If you would like a full explanation of the difference between conventional and organic viticulture go HERE. If you are looking for wines from organically grown grapes go HERE.

• Buy Boxed: Many readers will think I should be shot for even suggesting that you purchase boxed wine. Other readers will squeal with joy that they can serve boxed wine with some political correctness. Boxed wines that are made of "Tetra Paks" have a reduced amount of green house gas emissions than glass bottles of wine and require less energy to ship. Avoid those single-serving boxed wines though because they require more packaging for less product. Make sure that when you choose to drink boxed wines, you do it responsibly: recycle the box.
  

In the End, Ethanol is Worse than Gasoline