Ralph Nader and the Environment

This blog has covered all the Presidential candidates and their various platforms & records on the environment. You can see comparisons between Hillary & Obama or Obama & McCain. You can read an interview with Ron Paul on the environment and you can sign a petition encouraging Obama & McCain to run carbon neutral campaigns.

Now that Ralph Nader has entered the 2008 Presidential contest, I feel obligated to include his views on environmental policy on the blog as well.

The important thing to know about Nader is that he has been working as a consumer advocate for decades. The issues he advocates for include corporate responsibility, consumer safety and environmental protection.

With this in mind, what would a Nader presidency include:

• A carbon tax on factories and energy plants to discourage release of carbon emissions.

• A timed phase-out of fossil fuel over the next 25 years, beginning with the worst offenders, coal and oil.

• A movement away from the current trend of government funding for corn-based ethanol and nuclear development.

• No more funding of "clean coal" technology because, despite what Obama believes, Nader says there is no such thing as clean coal.

• A level playing field where oil and gas companies do not receive the lion's share of tax subsidies and tax breaks.

• Legalized industrial hemp for consumer products like paper, cloth, etc.

• In leiu of tax incentives or subsidies, tax penalties for failure to meet pollution standards as well as technology forcing technology supported by in-house government research and development.
  

• An end to mountain top mining where the tops of mountains are blown off to access coal at a inexpensive price.

• Reform of the 1872 Mining Law that allows mining of minerals for as little as $2.50 an acre. This law gives away our natural resources at incredibly low prices while forcing tax payers to foot the bill on cleaning up the mess from mining.

• An end to commercial logging on federal lands.
  

If you are interested in reading an interview with Nader on his '08 environmental platform and his background on environmental issues, go HERE

You can visit Nader's official campaign website HERE

The Feds Want Your Junk

I'm sure by now you know the danger of throwing your used electronics into the garbage. You know about the toxic materials and how they will seep into our ground water and pollute our air as they slowly disintegrate. Apparently, the United States Postal Service also knows about this danger.

The USPS is rolling out a new initiative that will allow you to mail in old cell phones and small electronics to be recycled for FREE. Thats right, free.

Ten cities and 1,500 post offices will participate in the pilot program. At these locations, you will be able to pick-up special envelopes that will hold printer cartridges, MP3 players, cell phones and other smaller products. Then, just drop the filled envelope in any mailbox anywhere in the country and they'll take it from there. If the program is successful, it will be expanded nationally later this year.

The company who receives your outdated junk is Clover, an electronics recycler. Clover recycles every part of these old electronic products for use in new products. Their goal is zero waste.

For more information, read the USPS press release HERE

Recycling the Apple Way

Its old news by now that Apple has transformed its brand over the past decade and is regarded as a realistic alternative to PC's by mainstream consumers. This is partly due to the huge popularity of iPods and to the ever-growing discontent with Windows. Throughout its transition from cult icon to pop icon, Apple has struggled to avoid being portrayed as an anti-environment company. Year-after-year environmental organizations like Greenpeace give Apple a thrashing for its use of toxic components. Finally, Apple is getting ahead of the game with its newer products like the Macbook Air. But...what is the most eco-friendly way to make the switch from PC to Mac?

If you are someone who wants to trade up from a PC to a Mac, Apple offers an incredible offer. Buy a Mac, recycle your PC for free!

• First, at the point you purchase the new Mac, you will be given the opportunity to choose to recycle your old PC (ignore the impulse to keep it, its just going to collect dust).
• Second, print out the email from Apple that contains shipping instructions for your old PC.
• Third, box up your old PC in an appropriate way so that it doesn't break in transportation.
• Fourth, take it to FedEx with your printed email. They'll handle it from there!

What if you have an old iPod or cell phone that you'd like to recycle? Apple will take care of that for free too!

• First, go HERE and fill out the form.
  
• Second, print out the mailing label.
• Third, package your items and bring them, with the mailing label, to your post office.

This is a great service for Apple to provide. You can also bring cell phones, batteries, and more to stores like Staples or OfficeMax to have them properly recycled. You can check with your local waste disposal company to find out if they have an electronics recycling program so you can just drop off an old computer or monitor there instead.

The most important thing to remember, NEVER throw electronics or batteries into the garbage. They contain toxic chemicals and metals that will endanger your health and the health of the planet.

Curb Carbon Emissions Without Hurting the Economy?

There are plenty of people out there who stand to gain financially from continuing to push fossil fuels. These are the people who love to make the claim that carbon caps will ruin the United States' economy. Of course, scare tactics often work, and that is exactly why oil & coal companies use them.

What is missing from their argument are those inconvenient facts that undermine threats of our economic undoing. Outside of the oil and gas universe there are many venture capitalists who are pouring resources into green energy development in technology centers like Silicon Valley. These are the same venture capitalists who became billionaires by funding development of personal computing technology. Obviously, these investors believe there is a bright economic future for the U.S. in sectors other than oil, gas & coal. Read more HERE

A glance at Germany's manufacturing sector shows how much opportunity there is for employment growth in the creation of renewable energy components. Tens of thousands of jobs have been created in that country as they have embraced solar energy. Plus, the development of solar panels in Germany have led to a huge growth in solar energy usage. Over 300,000 solar energy systems are installed throughout Germany to generate electricity for homes, businesses and industry. Read more HERE

Today, the EPA released an economic impact analysis for the Lieberman-Warner "Climate Security Act of 2008" that shows implementation of the law would not significantly harm the U.S. economy over the next 20 years. The "Climate Security Act of 2008" cuts greenhouse gas emissions 11% below 1990's levels by 2030 and 50% by 2050. The EPA predicts that the U.S. economy will grow by 80% between 2010 and 2030 under the new law. What is the predicted economic growth during the same period WITHOUT the new law? 81%. That is a 1% difference. The only caveat in the EPA's analysis is that energy costs will likely increase during the transition away from fossil fuels. This is debatable as the cost of renewable energy is dropping significantly every year and the price of gasoline is soaring with or without carbon caps.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that energy technology from previous centuries are not the most cost-efficient and economically viable options for America.

Natural, Organic Oven Cleaner

This weekend we decided to clean the gunk out of our oven that keeps causing smoke that sets off the smoke alarm. Unfortunately, our oven doesn't have a self-clean setting.

I think its widely acknowledged that most oven cleaners are very toxic with unhealthy fumes. Although these products get burnt-on waste off the oven walls, they probably burn a few brain cells in the process. What other options do you have when getting your oven clean?

Well, there are natural oven cleaners like "Restore" that use plant-based solvents and citric acid to break down stains. We used a mixture of vinegar and water to rub off the stains. It worked sufficiently. Below are some other recipes from THIS SITE

GRANDMA'S TRIED AND TRUE VINEGAR RECIPE

• 5T Baking soda

• 3 drops hand soap or liquid dish soap

• 4T White vinegar

Mix above ingredients until they form a thick paste. Apply paste to inside of oven and scrub with sponge. Wipe clean and rinse thoroughly.

CITRUS CLEANSER

• Use equal amounts of lemon juice and salt. Apply paste to stubborn stains and allow to sit for 3-5 minutes. Scrub with brush and wipe clean.

NATURAL SCRUB CLEAN OVEN SOLUTION

• 4T Baking soda

• 4T Hot, steamy water

Make a paste with the above listed ingredients and apply it to the oven's cavity using an old toothbrush or soft-bristled cleaning brush. Allow solution to sit for 1-minute. Scrub with brush until oven is clean. Rinse with water and sponge until no traces of baking soda remain.

TOUGH STAIN REMOVER

• 1c Salt

• 1c Baking soda

• 1c Water

Make a paste using the ingredients above and apply it to the inside of the oven. Close door and heat oven to 500-degrees for 60 minutes. Turn off oven and allow to cool. Wipe debris from oven using a moist sponge. Rinse well.

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."