I would love to see the country go green in such a short time period, but I must admit that I am a bit of a skeptic, not because I don’t think it’s possible, but mostly because I don’t see politicians and businesses having the courage to move that quickly, and I don’t see the average voter having the motivation to move that quickly.

The world is a different place now than when John F. Kennedy challenged the country to put a man on the moon. Back then, we were scared. We were terrified of those evil, awful Russkies, and we had to come together as a country to defeat them and protect our national honor by beating them to the moon. It was a matter of pride.

I don’t think we worry about national pride anymore. We don’t worry about Russians. We don’t even really worry about global warming. We have become complacent. What we worry about is the economy and our mortgages and our jobs, as well we should. Reagan and Gorbachev ended the Cold War, and now our biggest enemy is China, not because we fear they will blow us up, but because we fear they will take our jobs. So Gore’s call for a clean energy society within 10 years is falling, it seems, on deaf ears.

Gore says the cost of his plan would be $1.5 to $3 trillion dollars over a 30-year period. That’s the figure developed by The Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonpartisan group Gore heads. Others have said the figure would be much higher, and that, it seems, is the basis for most skepticism and derision.

To get some perspective, I surfed over to the Cost of War calculator at the National Priorities Project to see how much we’ve spent on the war in Iraq. Some how, George Bush and Congress have managed to come up with over $500 billion to fund the war in Iraq. That’s half a trillion dollars in the last seven years, and a third of the low-end amount of Gore estimates as the costover the next 30 years of converting to clean energy. Personally, I’d rather see us fund alternative energy. After all, we’d actually receive some benefits from such an expenditure.

I find it ironic that lack of money is such a great excuse not to do something that needs to be done, but, in times of war, this country can always find the cash to send troops to battle. Perhaps if we decided this was a war and we once again had a fear of danger from an outside force, then we’d find a way to get the money. Al Gore shouldn’t have talked about going to the moon. Al Gore should have talked about going to war. Then perhaps the money and motivation would appear.

Until we see this as a battle we can’t lose, people and politicians will continue to drag their heels.

Many readers are aghast that the site should suggest the presence of any pesticides is ok. I understand their point. We’d certainly all be better off in a world where pesticides weren’t used. But I also understand the point of the article. Not everyone can afford to buy only organic products. I’m certainly one of those people. So I think it’s great that The Daily Green has highlighted the foods that are likely to have lower levels of pesticides. That means customers can spend their organic dollars elsewhere, as the subtitle says, knowing that they’re making the best decisions for their health without breaking the bank.

In a perfect world, no one would ever have to make a choice between fewer pesticides and no pesticides, but until we get there, I’m happy to take The Daily Green’s advice.

The announcement is another in a string of sustainable business initiatives to come out of the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company.  Wal-Mart says its sustainability goals are simple: to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy; to create zero waste; and to sell products that sustain our natural resources and the environment.

But talk is cheap, right? I am skeptical of any business that sets such lofty goals with absolutely no mention of a timeline. On the other hand, I’ve noticed my local Wal-Mart now has recycling bins set up so shoppers can toss in their old alkaline batteries, rechargeable batteries and old cell phones. Wal-Mart has definitely been taking steps to move in the right direction, and some of these bigger steps do have quanitifiable targets. I’m actually impressed. These are a few of the steps Wal-Mart has taken in the last year:

- joined the Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN) ( World Wildlife Fund’s initiative to save the world’s most threatened forests),  and committed to phasing out illegal and unwanted wood sources within five years and increasing its proportion of wood products originating from credibly certified sources

- committed to purchasing 100 percent of its wild caught seafood sold in the U.S. from sources certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) within four years

- in May 2008, achieved the goal made in 2007 to sell only concentrated liquid laundry detergent in its U.S. and Canadian stores

- announced a plan to provide solar energy to 22 stores in California and Hawaii, which is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6500 to 10,000 metric tons per year

- began selling reusable bags for $1 each in all of its stores

- in October 2007, reached its goald to sell 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) three months ahead of schedule

- committed to reducing packaging by 5 percent by 2013 and introduced a scorecard to keep track of its progress

The company’s website lists a host of other accomplishments and initiatives, too. If they can accomplish these goals, Wal-Mart will set a great example of how going green can be good for the environment and business. I wish them much success.

It’s a great step for a state that has so much renewable energy shining down in the form of sunshine. Ironically, Hawaii is the most oil-dependent state in the union. According to the state government website, “90 percent of our energy supply derived from imported fossil fuels. The unconnected power grids of our islands and our location as the world’s most isolated archipelago add to the challenges. As a result, we pay the highest utility rates and transportation fuel costs in the nation.”

But Hawaii doesn’t plan to stop there. In 2007, Governor Lingle signed the Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires statewide greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020, and in January 2008, the governor announced the Hawai‘i Clean Energy Initiative. The Initiative is a partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that aims to have at least 70 percent of Hawai‘i’s power come from clean energy by 2030. 

“In addition to solar, it is critical that we continue to develop innovative energy solutions that capitalize on our natural renewable resource advantages in order to achieve our goal of having 70 percent clean energy in Hawai‘i by 2030,” Governor Lingle said.

Requiring solar waters is a good first step to reducing utility rates and moving toward the goal of 70 percent clean energy by 2030. Go Hawaii!

The New York TImes quoted Dr. Hansen as saying, ““If we don’t begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next several years, and really on a very different course, then we are in trouble.” The scientist is calling for a global moratorium on coal burning by 2030 and said he’s making a new public push to bring global warming to the forefront of politicians’ consciousness because he wants the US to re-engage in treaty talks scheduled to culminate with a new climate pact at the end of 2009.

http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/37479

CarbonCounter.org
Allows you to estimate your carbon emissions based on house size, car size(s) and number of flights, or to give a more accurate estimate by inputting specific information. Pros - Easy to use if you just want a very rough estimate. Cons - To get a more accurate footprint from your driving, you’ll need to know how many mpg your car gets.

An Inconvenient Truth
Determine your carbon footprint from your monthly energy bills, vehicle usage and number of airline flights taken annually. Pros - you don’t need to know your actual energy use in kWhs to use this calculator. Cons - it only allows you to input data for one car.

Carbonfund.org Carbon Calculator
Determines your carbon footprint based on the total number of miles you drive per year per vehicle (up to two) and your energy use, which you must know in kWh/yr for electricity, therms/year for gas, and gallons/year for heating oil. Most people don’t know this off the top of their head, so check your monthly energy bill. Pros - allows you to enter up to two vehicles. Cons - you must know how many miles per gallon your car gets and also know your annual energy use to use it.

TerraPass
Calculates your home carbon emissions based on your monthly energy bill and car use. Pros - automatically guesses your car’s mpg based on year, make and model and you only need to know how much you pay for energy each month, not how many kilowatt hours you use. Cons - Using energy bill to calculate your footprint may not be as accurate an inputting your kilowatt hours.

Safe Climate.net
Safe Climate.net is a project of the World Resources Institute. You’ll need to know how many kWh of electricity, therms of gas, gallons of heating oil or propane you use each month or year. Pros - if you don’t know your car’s gas mileage, you can select a car size to get an estimate. Cons - you need to know your home energy use in kilowatt hours.

And now that you know how big your footprint is, you’ll find tips for reducing it at these sites:

ClimateCrisis.net - What You Can Do
StopGlobalWarming.org - Take Action
DoSomething.org - 27 Small Things You Can Do to Stop Global Warming
NRDC - How to Fight Global Warming
Fight Global Warming.com - What You Can Do

You can also make a daily free donation to offset one pound of carbon with each click at Care2’s Race to Stop Global Warming.

Last year San Francisco became the first city in the U.S. to ban plastic bags, and this month China made headlines when they started enforcing a strict no-plastic-bag policy. In Ireland, Sweden and German, special taxes have been imposed on plastic bags. They’re not alone. As the price of oil continues to rise and concern about the environment increases, more local, state and national legislators are considering similar laws. In recent months, lawmakers in places such as Hawaii, California, Iowa, Texas, Canada, and South Australia have considered or passed plastic bag bans.

The arguments against plastic bags are multifold - they aren’t biodegradable, they require vast amounts of oil to produce (an estimated 12 billion barrels each year in the U.S. alone) and they are a hazard to wildlife, particularly sea life.

According to Environment California, “plastic bags and other plastic garbage thrown into the ocean kill as many as 1 million sea creatures every year. The number of marine mammals that die each year due to ingestion of and entanglement in plastic approaches 100,000 in the North Pacific Ocean alone.” The Environmental Literacy Council say a minke whale that washed up on a beach at Normandy in 2002 had 800 grams of plastic and packaging in its stomach.

Due to these causes, more and more cities, counties, and even countries are taking action. But why wait for your city council or state legislator to change the law? It’s never to early to make a change on your own. It’s easy. Here are three simple tips to help you kick the plastic bag habit.

1. Take all the plastic bags in your house to the local recycling center or drop them in the recycle bin in front of your local grocery store. Only about 3% of plastic bags ever get recycled, so do your part by recycling what you’ve got in your house now.

2. Just say no. The next time you’re in line to buy one or two items, politely ask your checker not to bag them. After all, if you were able to carry that bottle of Coke and frozen burrito to the checkout line without a bag, can’t you make it all the way back to your car or office?

3. Buy reusable bags. Major chain stores such as Safeway, Toys R Us and others are starting to offer inexpensive (sometimes as low as 99 cents) canvas or other reusable bags. Buy some and stick them in your car so they’ll be there for your next shopping trip. For fancier bags, check out reusablebags.com or create your own canvas photo bag at sites such as Shutterfly.

A plastic bag ban may be the horizon in your area soon, so beat the crowd and go green now.

MDI, Negre’s France-based company, has patents in over 120 countries and has already signed deals to bring the vehicle to market in India, Spain, Australia and the United States. In the U.S., Zero Pollution Motors will be manufacturing the vehicles, which run on compressed air and emit only air at low speeds. The company plans to release a six-seat, four-door version of the compressed air car in 2010 for an estimated price of approximately $18,000.

The 75-horsepower Air Car will come complete with all the features today’s drivers expect, such as air bags, power windows and locks, a CD player and even an optional GPS system. But the Air Car will offer a feature today’s car don’t - a much cheaper fill-up. The car only needs fuel at speeds over 35 mph, and then it requires only small amounts to heat the engine. According to the ZPM website, the US version of the compressed air car will get the equivalent of 106 mpg with a range of 848 miles, and a maximum speed of 96 mph. At speeds under 35 mph, the car runs on compressed air stored in scuba-type tanks stored in the vehicle, so no gas is necessary.

Once it hits the roads, the car could be the cleanest vehicle in mass production. And its emissions could even help clean the air. That’s because the air used to fill the tanks is run through carbon filters to eliminate dirt and dust that could hamper the engine’s performance. So the emissions coming out of the tail pipe are actually cleaner than the air that went in to the engine.

And even when its burning fuel, the Air Car will still run cleaner than any car currently on the road today. The compressed air car will emit only 0.141lbs of CO2 per mile at speeds over 35 mph. “That is up to 4 times less than the average vehicle and more than two times less than the cleanest vehicle available today. (Toyota Prius 07 Emissions: 0.34 lbs of CO2 per mile)” according to the ZPM website.

Clean, green and affordable. The Air Car may be just what the world needs to break its oil habit.

One of the things I love about the Internet is all the free stuff: free information, free games, free videos, free coupons and my personal favorite - free donations. The Hunger Site was the first site to encourage web surfers to do good with just the click of the mouse. Since its launch in 1999, the site has donated more than 60 million pounds of food by raising money from advertisers who pay for each user click and then distributing that money to its partners, which currently include Mercy Corps and America’s Second Harvest.

The success of The Hunger Site has spawned many other free click-to-donate sites. Now you can help save the rainforest, end breast cancer, support needy children, promote literacy and even stop global warming from the comfort of your home. All you need is a computer, an Internet connection, and the desire to help others.

Two sites now make it easy for you to help end global warming. Just surf over to Care2.com’s Race to End Global Warming and click the “Reduce 1 pound of carbon” button or visit Ecology Fund and click the “Clean the Air” button to make a difference. At Care2.com, each click will generate a donation to offset one pound of carbon dioxide through TerraPass. At Ecology Fund, your click will help remove two pounds of carbon dioxide from the air by planting tress in the monarch butterfly forest of Michoacan, Mexico.

It’s an easy way to make a difference in the fight against global warming, so put your mouse to work today making the world better for tomorrow!

And if you’re interested in more sites that allow you to make free donations with a single click, visit the Free Donations page at Squidoo for more links.

The Review-Journal may be Nevada’s largest newspaper, but I certainly hope they don’t speak for the majority of the state’s citizens. In a June 2 editorial titled “Global warming? Hold on to your wallets,” which discussed a global warming bill in the Senate, the paper said, “left-wing environmentalists… see an opportunity to use this issue to cripple human advancement.”

Cripple human advancement? How, exactly, could a cap and trade program to limit global warming emissions cripple human advancement? The newspaper doesn’t exactly say, but they are quick to criticize the plan without offering a better solution.

I get irate when I hear voices criticizing efforts to ensure the continued existence of our planet and, yes, our very comfortable lifestyle when those same voices don’t have a better solution. If this isn’t the solution, then what is? Is there another bill pending in the Senate that the LVRJ would prefer to see passed instead? Or do they have another option? If so, I’d love to hear it.

But from the negative tone of the article and references to “those who worship at the church of global warming,” I suspect that the folks at the Review-Journal don’t really believe in global warming, or perhaps they think we should just sit back and do nothing until everyone else has already reduced their emissions. The paper’s statement about “what this will actually do to curtail ‘global warming’ remains murky, especially since India and China won’t be attending the parade,” fails to point out that the United States is a far worse polluter by size of population. China, which has 1.3 billion people, has only recently overtaken the U.S. as the largest emitter of global warming gases. And India, with a population of 1.1 billion, still pollutes less than the U.S.

So why does the editorial board of this newspaper feel justified in slamming a proposal that would take action? They feel that the proposal would “send energy prices through the roof.” Hello?? Have they not noticed that energy prices have been escalating for years, and we certainly can’t blame a trading system that hasn’t yet been adopted. So perhaps there are other forces driving up our prices, forces such as increasing demand from a society that uses energy for everything from running multiple TVs and computers to lighting office buildings in the middle of the night when nobody is there.

I would like to hope that we as a civilization can stop bickering about whether global warming is real, since scientists from around the world have already agreed on this point. Instead, we should start looking for solutions that will not only solve the problem, but also be good for people and the economy. The Review-Journal chooses to focus on one solution and criticize it due to the possible impact on energy costs, while failing to recognize that newer, cleaner sources of energy - such as solar, wind and biofuel - can help offset any negative financial impact we might feel from a trading program focused on fossil fuels.

And rather than “crippling human advancement,” changes we make to slow global warming could and should advance our society. Has the introduction of the Toyota Prius crippled society? I’d certainly say not. In fact, it has spurred one of the largest changes in automotive technology since the internal combustion engine was first used in the Model T, while helping consumers pinched by high gas prices and also emitting fewer global warming gases.

Crippling advancement? I don’t think so. The greatest threat to humankind’s advancement is not people trying to slow or reverse global warming through innovation and invention, but people trying to bury their head in the sand and cling to old ideas. Denial is always a far greater threat than action.