A recent article by Popsci.com brings up a new, alternative energy idea that hasn't been discussed in the same ways as solar, wind and hydrogen.  That is power harvested by humans.  Now, before "soylent green is people" runs through your head, I mean kinetic energy.

Human beings create new energy in large amounts, mostly stored in our body fat, but also in our muscles.  That energy is used and burned in our movements, which is called kinetic energy.  By harvesting kinetic energy from simple actions like walking or running, you could be recharging more than just your body.

Human energy won't get you off the grid, but it will help to make a small difference.  Green Microgym, in Portland, Oregon, has created a stationary bike that will harvest the energy you put out during your workout.  Riding the stationary bike turns a generator, which then helps to power the building.  As the machines are fine-tuned, the amount of energy produced and stored in the generator could increase.

There's also dance floors in the Netherlands that use the same kinetic energy.  The company, called the Sustainable Dance Club, utilizes the piezoelectric effect, where certain materials create an electrical current when they are bent or compressed.  As the people in the club dance on the floor, it is compressed by half an inch, and makes contact with the piezoelectric material that is underneath.  In the future, this floor could power more than the LED lights in the club, and eventually power the whole club itself.

Today Former Vice President Al Gore goes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to testify how we need to get back to global environmental leadership to help combat catastrophic climate change.  One of the first things that needs to be done is to have the government supportive and involved in green technologies.

While Gore is a very vocal advocate for greener legislation and government supported programs, he still needs your help.  That is why the people at Repower America are asking for people to send a letter to congress in support of an economic recovery package that focuses on creating more jobs, and creating green energy sources.

Repower America's goal is to have 100% clean electricity by 2019.  It seems like a large and far off goal, but in actuality it is completely attainable.  We just need governmental support.  By sending your letter to congress through Repower America, you can show that the demand for clean energy is there.

If you're not comfortable signing your name to a letter, go to the website anyway and watch Gore's plea to the people.  Forward the link on to your family members and friends.  There's a lot you can do to help promote a greener America from behind the scenes.

For many people, the reality of global warming and catastrophic climate change has never been questionable.  Scientifically, the Earth does warm and cool itself in a cycle, and yes, human beings emit a lot of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that can cause a pre-mature warming of the Earth.  There are many skeptics out there that claim that global warming is a source of "liberal propaganda," or that it can't be proven.   Others say that it is something that cannot be proven either way, and that we’ll just have to wait and see what happens.  Those positions are starting to become the minority, with more and more scientists and studies coming forward to say that catastrophic climate change is real, dangerous, and we are partially to blame.

A Green Groove Unite blog post from January 7th links out to an article from the UK that shows that humans are the cause of polar warming.   That came as a blow to the faction claiming that the changes in temperature around the Earth aren’t human caused, but part of a natural cycle.  A new survey, reported from CNN, is the final nail in the “Global Warming Is A Farce” coffin, stating that global warming is indeed real, and again, we have to take some of the blame.

3,146 scientists were surveyed about their opinions, and their answers claim that not only is global warming very real, but humans have had a definite impact on the Earth and it’s rise in temperature.  The study, done by the University of Illinois, consisted of a survey with 9 questions, sent out to scientists listed in the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.

The study wasn’t unanimous in stating one way or another, but there was an overwhelming majority to some questions.  One question asked “Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800 levels?” with another asking “Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?”  The response to the first question had a 90% agreement rate, and the second had a 82% agreement rate (CNN article).

We’ve stated this before, and in many different ways.  Regardless of if the scientists agree that there is such a thing as global warming, there are obvious changes happening on our planet.  Glaciers are melting, animals and insects are disappearing, and the weather is acting abnormally.  You don’t need someone to say that global warming is real to want to change and live more sustainably.  If you make the goal now to live more green, and a week from now it’s proven without a doubt that we are the cause of global warming, you can feel affirmed in your decision.  If a week from now it’s proven that global warming is fake, you can still feel good about wanting to reduce your planetary impact and not ruin our Earth.  I have a feeling, though, that the first option is the one we’re most likely facing.

The folks over at This Is Reality just recently broke a story that the people behind selling "clean coal" have now tried something that was tried, and successful, in the media before them.  Unfortunately they chose to emulate the tobacco industry... probably not the smartest idea, since both companies pollute the Earth, make people sick, and don't tell the whole story.

[Image Source: This Is Reality]
[Image Source: This Is Reality]

The Big Coal industry has released a full page advertisement where they say that not only is coal "clean," which it isn't, they also say that it's "cool," which it most definitely isn't.  There is no such thing as clean coal, and cool coal?  Really?  Who are they selling to?  This whole idea of "cool" was tried with Joe Camel, as This Is Reality show, and the only thing it did was appeal to little kids.  Well, I hate to break it to you Big Coal, kids aren't out there buying coal products.

When I first saw this post, I laughed out loud.  Really, what are they thinking?  Clean coal is an oxymoron.  Coal is proven to be one of the dirtiest forms of energy that we could use.  If you want to market an alternative energy that is CLEAN and COOL, how about wind energy?  That is literally clean and cool.

As a whole generation (and probably more) are now dying from smoking cigarettes, people who started smoking because it was "cool," I have to wonder when this facet of marketing will be realized for what it is and not used anymore.  If there is overwhelming evidence that something is bad for you, the planet, the health of your friends and family, but others saying it's "cool" doesn't make that other stuff go away. 

The Fonz is cool, coal is not.

A recent development in China could result in a major drop in CO2 emissions, thanks to a plan to pay citizens to not drive their cars. Leading up to the Olympics, China had instated a city-wide ban of cars in Beijing one day out of the week, based on a lottery system derived from license plate numbers. That plan greatly reduced the amount of cars on the road, and therefore CO2 emissions.

This new plan is slightly different. The new plan aims to take at least 10% of Beijing's estimated 3.5 million cars off the roads, which would cut about 50% of the city's pollution. So how can they get this many cars off the road? It all comes down to money. People who voluntarily stop driving their cars will be compensated, with some sources saying up to $3,600. There's also incentive for if you purchase a greener car. People who do not get their cars off the road will be penalized with a fine of 100 yuan (roughly $12 US). There is also in introduction of a fuel tax.

In a city as big as Beijing, there should be a pretty good public transportation system in place. Even in smaller cities, there generally is a metro/bus/subway system that is available to people in their daily commute. We could all do a part in cutting CO2 emissions from driving cars by taking a cue from the Chinese. Pick one day of the week and not drive at all. Plan a carpool with co-workers or friends, take the bus, or ride a bike (weather permitting). This not only cuts your personal carbon footprint down, but it sets a good example for the people you work with, the people you live with, and the people who see you during the day.

(Causecast.org original article)

We recently became aware of a campaign called The Big Ask, lead by a group called Friends of the Earth. This was a call to arms for citizens of the UK, asking the government to pass a bill that will help cut the amount of carbon dioxide released by 3% each year. The whole thing started in April of 2005, and culminated in October of 2008 with Parliament voting that will cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 (History of The Big Ask).

Now, you may be asking, what does this have to do with me? Well, a lot. Regardless of where you're at on this Earth, be it the UK, the US, or the EU, there are things that can be done to change the world, and using the actions of others as motivation is the best way to start. If we just take the lessons learned from The Big Ask, and follow their example, why couldn't other governments draft and pass a similar bill?

It may seem easy to say "Well, that was the UK, we couldn't do that here." But why couldn't it? Change comes from positive thinking, and if the citizens of this world stop thinking of catastrophic climate change as something we can't stop or fix, and start thinking of it as something that we can and will stop, then who's to say that we can't?

Take a minute to learn about The Big Ask, and start thinking about how to get similar bills drafted where you live. Get a group of friends together and start networking. Become a social force to be reckoned with, and then get your voices heard. The Big Ask got it started, and now it is up to the rest of us to finish it. The planet can't wait forever.

A recent study by Climate Research Unit, at the UK's University of East Anglia, has shown that human activity is partially to blame for the rising temperatures at both the North and South Poles. This study is one of the firsts to pin the causes of polar warming on humans alone. Before this study, most claimed that humans were partially to blame.

Scientists observed the mean land surface temperatures in the Arctic, looking at a 100 year period. The Antarctic study was shorter, only looking at data for 50 years, since there was no data station available in the area until 1945. After that, they applied the data to two models; one examining natural forcings, and the second simulating natural and anthropogenic forcings. The second model included sulphate aerosol, greenhouse gases, and ozone depletion. The studies showed that the changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures were not consistent with interal climate variability, thus humans are a major contributing cause.

"In both cases the accelerations are not consistent with natural forcing, which means that natural forcing alone cannot produce such a warming. So in a sense, we can say conclusively that this [warming trend at the poles] is due to human influence," states Dr. Alexey Karpechko to CNN (CNN article).

It's been argued for some time that polar warming and climate change was human caused, at least in part. If there were no humans on Earth, then there would be no ozone depletion from hairspray, or CO2 emissions from highways. Some scientists claimed that the causes couldn't be blamed on humans alone, stating that there is a cooling-warming cycle over Earth. One such cycle is the Milankovitch cycle. The Milankovitch cycles are a set of cyclical variations in Earth's orbit around the sun, each cycle having a different length. There's strong evidence that the Milankovitch cycles affect the occurance of glacial (colder periods) and interglacial periods (warmer periods) within an ice age.

Regardless of what your position is on the debate, one thing is for sure. Even if global climate change and polar warming is or is not human caused, it can be human fixed. Ignore the old addage, "If you broke it, you fix it." In this case, we fix it regardless of who broke it. Each person on this planet has the potential to make a positive change towards reversing global climate change, and so many of those changes are little and easy to make. The jury may still be out on if we're completely, or partially, to blame for how our Earth is now, but we can start doing things to fix it so we don't hand our children and grandchildren an inhospitable planet.

Welcome to the first issue in the recently instated Green or Not campaign, where we look at various products frequently used, and question their sustainability. Today we're taking a look at bottled water.

It might seem like there's a simple answer to this question, and thankfully, there is. The answer is no. While plastic bottles used for bottled water can be recycled, not many are. Recycling those bottles doesn't cancel out the CO2 emissions and electricity used to manufacture the bottles in the first place, or to package and ship those bottles, or to keep them chilled once they're in the store. The water is often just "tap water" that has gone through a distilling process.

According to the Pacific Institute, just bottling water takes up to 17 million barrels of oil, and that number doesn't take into account the oil used in shipping the bottles. Bottling also puts out 25 million tons of carbon, and wastes more water than is bottled (Pacific Institute). It's estimated that every 5 minutes, Americans use two million plastic bottles. Artist Chris Jordan, who we've featured here on this blog before, has a photograph of what this looks like over at his website (Plastic Bottles, 2007).

Well, if using bottled water isn't green, what is? Buying a filter for your tap, or for your fridge, and filtering your own tap water at home. Purchase a reusable water bottle, like the BPA-Free bottles offered by Naglene, or a metal water bottle (which helps keep your drink cooler and the taste purer). If you have to buy a bottled water, recycle it afterward!

To sum up, when you're wondering if that bottle of Aquafina you're about to buy is Green or Not, you should set it back down and say "No!"