ND Football Goes Green... And Not in the Usual Way

There are times when my alma mater gets me down, like when they forget the Catholic legacy of supporting social justice and side with conservatives too much. But there are also times when I absolutely love the place. This is one of those times.

For the first time in history, ND football will be carbon neutral for a game. The school really seems to be taking things seriously in not only greening the function of the university, but in ensuring that the students are going to be learning how to be green in their daily lives as well.

Knowing the ND student body, I'm sure there are many who are bristling over the need for green tech and attitudes as a "liberal issue." But seeing the university taking it seriously will hopefully open some eyes and minds and move things on the right path toward a greener society.

So Much for Liberal Media Bias

Here's the ad that ABC refused to run during the debates, while still running all sorts of propaganda for Big Coal and Big Oil:

Sierra Club Ready to Expose Big Coal Lies During Debate

From the Sierra Club:

Sign Up for Mobile Coal Alerts During the Presidential Debates
From The Sierra Club

The dirty coal industry is planning to launch a major advertising blitz during the presidential debates. The Sierra Club will be keeping them accountable by monitoring the ads for ‘bogus coal moments’ where they attempt to spread misinformation.

Sign up to receive a mobile alert when a ‘bogus coal moment’ occurs during the debates. The Sierra Club will text you updates throughout the debates.

Text the keyword DIRTY to 69866 from your mobile phone.

Pledge to Stop Using Bottled Water!

Earlier I posted about how much money you can save by not using bottled water. Now, I'm going to ask you to pledge to not use bottled water! You can do so at the New American Dream website... please join those of us who no longer use bottled water, and use refillable bottles with tap water (which is pretty much the same as bottled water, don't let the marketers fool you!).

Reasons Not to Drill Offshore

There's been a lot of talk in the news lately about opening up our coastlines to offshore drilling for oil, and it absolutely astounds me that people are actually taking this suggestion seriously. I can think of no reason that this is a good idea, and plenty of reasons that the idea should be kicked to the curb:

1. We need to be moving away from the use of oil, period. It's damaging our very livelihood on this planet, as has been indicated by all the research on global warming and its causes, not to mention health risks associated with oil use.

2. Drilling offshore won't produce any oil for ten years, much like drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It won't do a thing to alleviate the fuel issues we're having now.

3. Allowing drilling offshore WILL increase the hold that Big Oil companies have on our public lands, which opens them up to all sorts of other development. Big Oil has enough of a hold on this country as it is, it's time to start reducing that hold.

4. Big Oil already has 68 million acres of leases that they're not even drilling. If they haven't used all the land they've already been given, there's no point in giving them more. Here's a frightening map of that land.

So do what you can to encourage your representatives and senators to quash any idea of giving up our shorelines. It's only what's right!

Stop Drinking Bottled Water, Save Hundreds of Dollars

As is becoming very clear, bottled water is a total rip-off. It's more expensive than gasoline, it creates unnecessary waste, the plastic in the bottles permeates the water inside with phthalates and puts our health at risk, and it's not any safer to drink than normal tap water.

Yet somehow, the bottled water industry has created this impression that it's much better than tap water.

Let's see just how much money you can save per year by avoiding tap water by using the bottled water cost calculator at New American Dream:

Now let me preface this by saying I haven't been drinking bottled water for over a year, so this isn't actually money I'll be saving as I've already kicked the habit. I drink from a 40 ounce stainless steel bottle, at least one bottle full per day. Figuring that into bottled water terms, it's about 913 sixteen-ounce bottles per year.

According to the calculator, I save $1367 per year. Plus I'm not putting anything into landfills or poisoning myself. Plus, I have this impact:

Impact
Total Water Consumed:	143 gallons
Extra Water Required for Production and Purification:	285 gallons
Energy Required for Manufacturing:	92 megajoules
Oil Required to Produce the Plastic Bottle(s):	23 gallons
CO2e to Manufacture Plastic Bottle(s):	171 pounds

I got my bottle at Whole Foods, it's an Enviro Products bottle. It's sturdy and holds plenty of water, so I don't have to refill it all the time (which is good, as I sweat a lot and can put down a sixteen ounce bottle in two swigs most of the time). My wife and son use bottles from Sigg and they both love them. The necks are a bit smaller for Jenn's, which is 1 liter, and Duncan's is .4 liters and has a twist-top that allows him to drink more easily and close it more easily. Plus it's got glow-in-the-dark astronauts on the outside and he loves that. Moira will be getting hers as soon as she's out of sippy-cups.

We got ours at Clintonville Outfitters on High Street - support local business and get yours there!

Could an Increase in Renewable Energy Lead to More Terrorism?

This post is designed as more of a rambling thought process than as any sort of quantifiable or supportable hypothesis. Keep that in mind - the point here is to discuss, not to define or state fact.

Despite the fact that I think the idea of converting as much of our energy in the US (and yes, around the world) to renewable sources such as solar, tidal, wind, etc. is the necessary step for us to take to improve the environment and get out of the quagmire that is the Middle East, I'm also concerned that such a step will open the floodgates to a whole new set of problems. This is a discussion of some of those problems as regards terrorism.

During what is commonly called "the Dark Ages" in Europe (when in fact it was hardly any sort of dark age, from what I've been reading recently), the Middle East and Muslim culture was soaring forward on the academic and cultural fronts. Much of the learning of ancient Greece and Rome was absorbed by Muslim scholars and improved upon, and many new sciences were developed as well. The number system we use today comes directly from that used by Muslim scholars; indeed the number zero was created by the Muslim mathematicians who found need for a placeholder in their system. Truly brilliant work was done during this time, and the Muslim world was the greatest center of learning in the world during that period.

Fast forward to the discovery of oil in the Middle East. Suddenly (or not so suddenly, given the imperialist nature of European powers in the 18th and 19th centuries), the value of the Middle East was no longer in the quality of its scholars and its position as a center of learning, but rather in its location and the black, oozy mess that was under its sands.

Since that discovery, and the sudden wealth that the sheiks and shahs and the like were bringing in based on nothing more than blind luck (that the oil was under their territories), the culture of the Middle East has been in a sharp decline. Instead of centers of learning, we now had centers of power, where those who controlled the flow of oil controlled the politics as well. Learning was taken out of the equation and pure capitalism was embraced in its stead.

So we now have a once-great culture, renowned for repositories of knowledge and institutions of learning, and now simply the distributors of a product. One product - crude oil. And in that time, the Muslim world has gone from a peaceful, mostly tolerant area of the world (and despite traditional views of the Crusades, it was an invasion by the Christian world of the Muslim world) to a very factionalized area, with rampant terrorism and intolerant regimes of all sorts. Let's face it - the globalized world has not been kind to the Middle East, for the most part. Sure, there are great centers of capitalism in the Middle East such as Dubai, but how many of those people are actually benefiting from that money rolling in? That's right: very few.

Now, the primary consumers of that one product, the western world (America and Europe), are trying to move away from an oil-based energy system. A system that our demand for a single product has put in place in the Middle East is now basically going to be abandoned, now that we're increasingly done with the product. What will the outcry of that be in the Middle East?

If I was a resident of that part of the world, and I'd seen my entire country revolve around the sale of oil for decades based on the demand of the western world, only to have that demand vanish over the span of a few years, I wouldn't be a particularly understanding person. In fact, what I'd see is that the West took my country and used it up, then leaving it on its own after it served its use.

What kind of resentment is going to remain in those countries after we leave and take our money with us? And what kind of revenge are they going to seek against us after we leave?

As I see it, the one thing we'd have going for us is that no more money would be flowing out of our coffers and into theirs, so there would be less money for terrorism (and let's face it - terrorism costs money, otherwise they wouldn't need to get oil money from Arabian sheiks).

Other than that, the necessary step we are taking to reduce our use of oil is going to result in a whole new set of problems. Keep your eyes open.

I welcome your comments - please keep it civil. I don't mean to offend anyone with my comments, just to stir up some debate.

Get Started Being Green!

Many people would love to be green, but other than changing their incandescent light bulbs for CFL bulbs they have no idea where to begin. Well, the folks at New American Dream have an answer for you: the C³ campaign.

Each month, another challenge is suggested by the folks at New American Dream for you to try out - they've done things like getting bottled water out of your life, stop driving for one day a week, sign up to reduce your junk mail, etc.

This month the challenge is to bring your own reusable bags to the store instead of using paper or plastic bags from the store!

Great program. Click the link below to get started! It's free to join in the fun.

Fight Bush's Fight Against Real Change in Bali

Many of you may know that the UN's Climate Talks are underway in Bali, Indonesia right now. Naturally, the Bush Administration is doing what it can to derail any significant change.

That's why it's important to let the other representatives at that conference know that Bush does NOT speak for us as Americans in this matter.

Let them know here.

The Best Argument I've Seen for Taking Action Against Global Warming

I've put forth a few arguments in favor of taking action against climate change. I've mentioned that any action we take to fight global warming is a positive action elsewhere as well, whether it fights pollution, reduces the obesity rates, increases the health of our populations, etc.

But here's an argument that I can't believe hasn't made the rounds yet. Well, it will now.

Tax the Gas, Lose the Ass

A great post on the Sierra Club's Compass blog about how to push the results of the study regarding gas prices and waistlines. I had to share...

There's a High Rate of Exercise-Induced Asthma, Says Study. Jamie Says "Why?"

The results of a study was released recently by OSU's sports medicine department recently that speaks to the high rate of exercise-induced asthma in college varsity athletes. The department used a "eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea testing" procedure, where basically people hyperventilate themselves and then their lung function is measured. 42 of 107 athletes were diagnosed with the condition as a result. 39 of them had never had asthma diagnosed in them before.

Interesting study. It goes on to say that the rate of exercise-induced asthma (I'm just going to say asthma from now on, assume I mean this specific form of the condition) is probably higher than originally thought due to this test never having been used before.

But I think that what this test is failing to consider is that maybe the rate of asthma has actually increased, instead of just lying undiagnosed for all this time. This study could be a benchmark for a study of air quality in our city. All the athletes diagnosed were from OSU, and therefore are breathing Columbus air (which isn't the best in the world, by a long shot).

If they'd never been diagnosed before, it's possible that they come from a cleaner environment than Columbus and they didn't develop it until they got to OSU...

I'd like to see this study become a larger study - it really could be a great example of just how bad things are with air quality in the city (and around the country).

Daily Show Captures "Horror" of Nantucket Wind Farm Project

No commentary necessary. Just watch.

Pathetic Suburbanites

On my biking blog, I recently addressed a Dispatch interview with Mark McCullers, the general manager of the Crew. He was talking about Crew Stadium and the need for improvements around it. I discussed the need for bike racks and a better cycling infrastructure, as it is a biking blog.

One of the comments I received was from a fellow who calls himself "Adrock", but left no contact information. And frankly, it pissed me off. Here's his first comment:

They would also have to relocate the stadium somewhere that is acceptable for most people to take their families to, especially if by bike.

I don't go to Crew games for the same reason I don't go to Clippers games or go shopping at City Center.

Once the new baseball stadium opens though, I'll probably be cruising down there on my bike all the time. I'd definitely go to soccer games too if the stadium weren't in such an awful location. I can't imagine what our international visitors must think of Columbus when they see it.

Huh? My answer:

What's wrong with the location of Crew Stadium? It's centrally located and easily accessible from both the expressway and surface streets. Plenty of families come to Crew games all the time - in fact, crowds seem to be made up mostly of families.

And he responded just now with this:

well, for me personally, it's not a place i'd choose to go unless i had to. i grew up in hilliard and live in grandview and have friends & family that live all around other suburbs. i can tell you that a good number of us suburban folk don't find the state fairgrounds or anywhere else in the majority of the city of columbus an appealing place to go visit.

sure, call me sheltered or ignorant or anything else, but that's the way it goes.

Okay. You're sheltered and ignorant - and a bit stuck up. First of all, most of the Crew's audience is suburban families. So you really can't say that "They would also have to relocate the stadium somewhere that is acceptable for most people to take their families to" - as it's obviously perfectly acceptable for most people to take their families to. I take my family there for almost every game. My friends all do the same. Just because YOUR little enclave won't go doesn't mean MOST people won't.

Second, your need to cling to the suburbs is cultural elitism of the very worst. You don't wish to see how anyone outside your little pre-fab environment lives, so you hide and partition yourself from the real world.

Third, you're a sprawlist of the worst sort - instead of visiting something, you insist that it be brought to you instead. So you're spoiled, on top of sheltered, ignorant, and stuck up.

Not taking advantage of the things your city has to offer because of the location is just sad. And it's people like this who are responsible for much of the environmental degradation we see today via the magic of sprawl.

Apologize to World for Bush's Actions

President George Bush has made the USA the only country in the G8 nations that did NOT agree to a goal of preventing the rise of the average temperature of the world by 2 degrees Centigrade, stating that it was against our policies.

"The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses multiple 'red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to... We have tried to 'tread lightly' but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position."
- White House document; 5/14/2007

The president obviously doesn't speak for the majority of Americans, who in poll after poll say they want the government to address climate change as the hard science that it is, and do something to reduce it.

Friends of the Earth is sending a petition that basically states just that:

On behalf of the United States of America, I apologize for the actions of our president, George W. Bush. His rejection of global warming measures to be endorsed at the upcoming G8 meeting is shameful, and does not represent my views or those of the American people.

Please visit the link and sign this petition!

26 Global Warming Myths Debunked

Britain's magazine New Scientist takes 26 different "reasons" to doubt global warming and debunks them. It's a good read, though a bit technical in parts.

Try Petrolius... It'll Give You That Warm Feeling All Over (the World)

Brilliant video... and visit the link after you watch!

Bush Set To Disobey Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's landmark case regarding the Environmental Protection Agency and global warming is near to being totally defied by the Bush Administration - predictably.

From the Los Angeles Times:

President Bush, while acknowledging Tuesday that he took "very seriously" the Supreme Court's ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles as pollution, set up a potential conflict with Congress by attaching two conditions to comply with the decision.

Bush said that any regulatory program should not slow economic growth, nor should its benefits to the atmosphere be offset by mounting emissions from China, India and other growing economies.

So, let's sort this out:

First, Bush says that a regulatory program should not slow economic growth. Obviously, the Bush Administration continues to follow the mindset that environmental policy enforcement means slowing the economy, when most reports today indicate that such enforcement will actually HELP the economy in the long run. Otherwise, why would companies like Wal-Mart be attempting to go green? The big box store giant announced late last year that it was attempting to produce zero waste and use entirely renewable fuels. And companies like DuPont and General Electric have announced similar goals, as a SMALL example.

So it seems the encouragement and enforcement of environmental policies is actually a PRO-economy move... unless you're in an industry that makes its living from being a polluter, specifically energy, oil and coal industries. And guess who put Bush into the White House!

Second, Bush says that our efforts should not be offset by China, India, and other developing countries. So, in other words, Bush is applying the playground mentality of "Joey doesn't have to do it, why do I have to?" Grow up, Mr. President. The economic issue isn't valid, therefore neither is this issue - we don't have to pollute to keep up with developing nations like China and India economically. And the US is the number one polluter in the world - our reduction in emissions can't help but make an impact, no matter WHAT China and India do.

And one final note: the President doesn't have the legal option to defy the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decisions are final, they are the Constitutional law of the land. He, as the head of the executive branch, is constitutionally bound to enforce the law of the land - no matter what. But, given his flouting of his constitutional responsibilities throughout his administration, should we be surprised?

You May Be The One Out Of Ten...

NASA satellite data estimates that one person in ten would be affected directly by rising sea levels due to global warming.

Want to see if you're one of those folks? Check out Flood Maps, which uses Google Maps to show the influence of the oceans' rising one meter at a time.

Hope you don't live in New York City or Florida...

I Suppose It's Only Fair...