The Thin Green Line

The "Real" Thing?

2009-05-26T10:40:00.004-04:00

Yes, we know.

Not only has a been a while since we spoke with you, dear reader, but important things have been happening -- things that require the insight you have come to depend upon from our informed and, dare we say, charming experts at The Thin Green line.

Well too bad this isn't going to be one of those days.

We're too excited about an announcement from Coca Cola, first reported here, that it's signature brown bottle may soon get a little bit greener.

"The world's largest beverage company says its new PlantBottle™ is recyclable, has a lower reliance on a non-renewable resource, and reduces carbon emissions compared with petroleum-based PET plastic bottles," the Environmental News Service reported.

"PET plastic bottles are made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource. The new bottle is made from a blend of petroleum-based materials and up to 30 percent plant-based materials such as sugar cane and molasses. "

What can we say but "wow."

The new "plant bottle," will be piloted with Dasani and sparkling water brands in select markets later this year and with vitamin water in 2010.

"The Coca-Cola Company is a company with the power to transform the marketplace, and the introduction of the PlantBottle is yet another great example of their leadership on environmental issues," Carter Roberts, president and chief executive of World Wildlife Fund, U.S., told ENS.

And while yes, we are tempted to make all sorts of snarky comments about a bottle of Coke's power to dissolve a nail or cook a steak (it once took the paint off the hood of our 1979 Thunderbird which had over-heated one sad July day near Fort Apache in the Bronx), but we'll refrain.

Because what Roberts said is true. They do have the power to transform a marketplace in desperate need of further transformation.

So we say again: "Wow."

Now we're pining for that other 70 percent. Then when we have a Coke, we'll smile.

Revealing The Hidden River (and Creek)

2009-04-28T01:06:00.009-04:00

The Schuylkill River Sojourn below Port Clinton, entering Berks County.

Photo by Daniel P. Creighton

It's that time of year again.

The flowers are blooming, the bees are buzzing, the allergy sufferers are weeping. Yup, it's time to promote river sojourns.

The biggest, in this area anyway, is the seven-day, 112-mile trip on the Schuylkill River, from Schuylkill Haven to sunny Philadelphia.

Increasingly popular, the Schuylkill River Sojourn runs from June 6 to June 12 and, as if the word of the Thin Green Line staff were not enough to convince you of its popularity, know that Saturday June 6 and Sunday, June 7 are already fully booked.

As a past participant, I can vouch for this description as presented on the Web site of the Schuylkill River National Heritage Area, which organizes the trip each year:

Sometimes it is wet and wild. At other times it is peaceful and inspiring. There are a few rapids, calm water, plenty of laughs, songs at the campsites, and celebrations in the river towns. There is a little bit of everything in store for canoers and kayakers who take part in the week-long sojourn down the Schuylkill River that begins the first weekend of June. And even though the same route is paddled every year, a different river greets us every June.<br>

Last year the cost was $75 per day for adults. That includes meals, guides, transportation of canoes and kayaks as well as transportation to nightly special events and the cost of camping locations, but not canoe or kayak rental, necessary if you don't have your own to bring. The sojourn contracts with a rental facility, but you must make your own arrangements with them.

This link will take you to registration for the Schuylkill River Sojourn, which is now doing everything electronically. Since you are reading this on a computer, this presumably presents no problem for you dear reader.

Now, while the Schuylkill Sojourn may be the big dog in Southeast PA., know that there's another scrappy little sojourn moving up in the ranks as well.

The Perkiomen Creek is, with the exception of the Little Schuylkill River in Schuylkill County, the largest tributary of the Schuylkill itself.

Below, canoers on the Perkiomen Creek.

And, as such, the folks at the Perkiomen Watershed Conservancy felt their redoubtable creek deserved a sojourn of its own, and so it has one.

This one is only a day long and covers only a portion of the creek, whose watershed reaches from Berks and Bucks counties deep into Montgomery County.

The day is Saturday, May 23, from about 9 a.m. to early afternoon.

Experienced canoers and kayakers as well as canoe beginners can explore the Perkie between Schwenksville and the Skippack Creek confluence. The 2009 Perkiomen Creek Sojourn is sponsored by Keenan, Ciccitto and Associates, a law firm headquartered in Collegeville.

Registration, which is now open, must be received before May 11 at 4:30 p.m. Participation fees are $30 for members and $50 for non-members of the Perkiomen Watershed Conservancy.

Canoe rental fees are $25 for members and $35 for non-members. All canoes must have two paddlers at all times. All participants must wear personal flotation devices (pfd’s) at all times. Sojourn participants may use their own boats (kayaks or canoes) or they can rent a canoe from the Conservancy. (A limited number of rental canoes are available.) If renting, participants should already have a canoeing partner when they register.

The Perkiomen Sojourn will begin at the Conservancy Headquarters at 1 Skippack Pike in Schwenksville. The Sojourn will end at Hoy Park on Arcola Road in Lower Providence Township where a picnic lunch will be provided.

The middle Perkiomen Creek between Schwenksville and the Skippack Creek boasts forests and birds of all kinds including mallards, many types of hawks, great blue herons, cormorants and mergansers. Even an occasional bald eagle is spotted along the Perkie.

Those interested in participating should follow this link for more information, or contact the Conservancy at 610.287.9383 to register.

We we've learned anything at the Thin Green Line, a debate we'd rather avoid right now thank you very much, it is that there is no substitute for experience, for getting out there and seeing for yourself.

So if you've never been on the river or the creeks that literally run through your back yard, you are really missing out on an experience that could change your whole outlook about where you live.

Interviewing the Orchestra on the Titanic

2009-04-26T10:24:00.008-04:00

"And the Band Played on..."

One of the most enduring images of the sinking of the Titanic is that of the orchestra, consigned to its fate, playing sonorously as the ship slips beneath the waves.

More than once, the slow-motion demise of printed newspapers has been compared to that ill-fated vessel, whose destruction was almost certainly assured the moment it was declared "unsinkable."

But what is missing from comparing journalism's crisis to its maritime counterpart is newspaper people.

One of our most enduring, irritating, maddening and, to be sure, necessary traits is our inability to just let things happen unexamined. We ask questions, we check the answers, we look things up. Like Columbo, we pick and pick and pick until we're satisfied with the answer.

Thus the title of this blog. Had there been any newspaper people on board the Titanic, they no doubt would have run around interviewing people about how they felt, writing down the order of songs played by the orchestra, trying to "get to the bottom of this story" before the ship hit bottom -- all while others twittered, or IM'd or texted unconfirmed and unverified messages to friends and family about their fate.

I can say this with confidence because as our own titanic ship of journalism flounders on the rocks of electronic competition, a slumping economy and, dare I say it, a growing national indifference, we are devoting as much time to dissecting our apparent demise (some would say too much) as we are trying to fix it.

In fact you might say, no one is declaring newspapers to be dying more loudly than newspapers themselves, due to our strong-jawed determination to be principled and seem objective even about our own death.

One of the best examples of this tendency I've seen in a while is this post on the "Green Inc." Web page maintained by The New York Times.

Enticingly headlined, "Skip the Newspaper, Save the Planet?" the subject is the recent decision by Marriott hotels to no cease providing free newspapers to guests who don't ask for one.

Obviously a cost-cutting measure, Marriott nonetheless chose to add some green spin to the move, saying they wanted to reduce their carbon footprint since not everyone used the paper that was provided.

This is where the picking comes in.

You see, the writer, one Tom Zeller Jr., couldn't just let that one go.

And so, like so many irritating newspaper people I love, Zeller digs in.

What he finds is that yes, it takes an awful lot of carbon and an awful lot of water to print a newspaper page, not to mention the trees it destroys. He then finds that if you're reading a newspaper on-line in Sweden, where most electric power is generated by hydro-electric and nuclear power, the carbon footprint is indeed less than picking up a printed copy.

But, if you're reading elsewhere in Europe or, presumably, the U.S. where coal figures more highly into the electricity profile, once you pass the 10-minute mark on-line, the footprint starts to pass that of the printed page.

If all this sounds like a giant rationalization to insist that we, the holy journalism industry, could NEVER be part of the problem -- we're always all about the solution aren't we? -- that's because it probably is.

Doesn't make it less true, of course, but it certainly feels like CYA to me.

What we should be focusing our efforts on is figuring out how we continue to provide our vital needling, examining, professional-skeptic-function electronically, and one that continues to rely on confirmed information from reliable sources and not just opinion -- you know like this -- without spending so much time chronicling our death spiral. That's what blogs are for and they seem more than happy to do it, although what they'll blog about when we're gone is bound to be less interesting.

But that is not our way. If we just left it alone, we would be ignoring a major shift in society and we wouldn't be true to who we are and why we're in this business. To be sure, newspaper people are working on keeping us afloat. But they're also being pestered by other newspaper people, asking them annoying questions and telling them (and the world) what we may be doing wrong.

Hey we just want to know -- and to tell you.

Now, if you'll excuse me, a source told me the tuba player on the promenade deck has an interesting story to tell....

Leave 'em Laughing

2009-04-22T22:54:00.007-04:00

("Don't' worry kids," says Grandpa. "John Boehner says the global warming gas carbon dioxide is nothing to worry about because we exhale it. But just think how much safer you'll all be when I stop breathing altogether!" Oh gramps, you're funny but you're no John Boehner.)

This being the week of Earth Day, we find ourselves blogging on an almost continuous basis in order to stuff as much green gunk into readers' heads as we can before their attention wanders back to American Idol.

So how happy were we, we ask you, when the Environmental Protection Agency declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be, imagine our amazement, dangerous?

The significance of this, other than to prove that the EPA is not spending its days drooling into a bucket and watching Sponge Bob Square Pants, is it sets the stage for carbon dioxide to be regulated. You may remember that was something George W. Bush promised to do when he first ran for president. You may also remember that promise evaporated faster than exhaust from a Camaro about 13 seconds into his first term.

Now, like magic, we are about the same amount of time into Barack Obama's first term and voila!, the EPA sees the light. If we didn't know better, we would almost suspect that somehow politics affects the government's view of science.

If you're wondering how we got to this point, here is a little refresher, courtesy of The New York Times: "In 2007, the Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. E.P.A., ordered the agency to determine whether heat-trapping gases harmed the environment and public health. The case was brought by states and environmental groups to force the E.P.A. to use the Clean Air Act to regulate heat-trapping gases in vehicle emissions. Agency scientists were virtually unanimous in determining that those gases caused such harm, but top Bush administration officials suppressed their work and took no action."

In issuing the EPA's determination Friday, the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said: “This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," according to this article in The New York Times.

Almost as quickly, John Boehner, the top Republican in the House of Representatives, went on national television to declare that "the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide. And so I think it’s clear…"

This insightful piece of logic was presented on ABC This Week to amazed host, George Stephanopoulos and can be viewed at this link to The New York Times Web site for Green Inc.

What's truly clear, is evidenced in the transcript; that Mr. Boehner was trying hard not to answer the question while seeming to, it also undermines its own logic.

According to Mr. Boehner, if it comes out of our bodies, it must be safe. And yet, what we do with what we flush down the toilet is highly regulated. How our bodily fluids get handled is regulated. Here in Pennsylvania, you even need a license to cut people's hair. Heck, just try burying grandpa in the back yard after he buys the farm and see what happens. Our whole bodies are regulated after we die.

(I must also mention here, with some reluctance, that Mr. Boehner and his party have a great deal of interest in regulating what comes out of a woman's body after conception, so I'm not sure he really wants to go down that road.)

Also, we're not sure where Mr. Boehner came up with the idea that anyone is calling carbon dioxide a "carcinogen." No one, to our knowledge, other than Mr. Boehner is saying CO2 causes cancer, only that it is altering the atmosphere in a way that may change the planet forever, which juuusssttttt might have an effect on human health.

So we agree with Mr. Boehner that the idea that CO2 is a carcinogen is "almost comical," largely because no one but him is saying that. Which, we're pretty sure, makes the joke on him.

In fact, we would consider his entire position "almost comical," if the survival of our planet's eco-system were a laughing matter.

P.S. We do want to thank him for providing us with the opportunity to inject a little bathroom humor into this debate, allowing us to loosen our collective collar and shed a little bit of our stuffy erudite image. After all, you should always leave 'em laughing, a point Mr. Boehner seems to understand.

Giving the "Green Brain" CRED

2009-04-21T09:31:00.004-04:00

I'll admit, I was skeptical when I saw the headline on The New York Times Web site.

"Why isn't the brain green?" it asked.

As Earth Day approaches, every publication and Web site is flashing it's "Green" cred, including The Mercury, which has a page on its Web site every day devoted to environmental news.

So I figured this was just The New York Times upscale version of some deep think piece about why the brain wasn't born an environmentalist, especially when I saw it was in The New York Times Magazine. Their stuff is always too long (HEY!, get that mirror away from me...)

Because I'm devoted to you, dear reader (all nine of you), I threw myself upon the green grenade and undertook the task of reading it FOR you, so you wouldn't have to.

But now, I'm afraid, I am going to have to throw you under the bus, hydrogen powered of course.

As it turns out, the subject is darn interesting.

First of all, CRED, created with the help of a $6 million grant from the National Science Foundation, actually stands for something: the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions.

And while this immediately presents itself as an excellent candidate for mocking, the following quote from one of its founders, Elke Weber — who holds a chair at Columbia’s business school as well as an appointment in the school’s psychology department -- dispels that impulse.

It goes like this: "Let’s start with the fact that climate change is anthropogenic. More or less, people have agreed on that. That means it’s caused by human behavior. That’s not to say that engineering solutions aren’t important. But if it’s caused by human behavior, then the solution probably also lies in changing human behavior."

And THAT, dear reader, is the core message of Earth Day.

When it began in the 1970s, Earth Day provided the public face that helped push for the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Clean Air and Clean Water acts.

But the necessity for a more tidal change is now upon us.

Consider the case of water pollution. What began when Ohio's Cuyahoga River caught fire has been addressed. Factories are regulated, power plants have inspectors, sewage treatment plants have been upgraded.

What now poses the greatest threat to water purity is us, and all we do. Called "non-point source pollution," it's the fertilizers, the pesticides we put on our lawns, the drippings from the car that go down the storm drain, the expired prescriptions we flush down the toilet.

It's our lifestyle that now has to change, and it goes far beyond water pollution. It's everything.

And what CRED is looking at is the fact that human beings are not wired to do something now that will prevent harm later.

Consider this paragraph:

"In analytical mode, we are not always adept at long-term thinking; experiments have shown a frequent dislike for delayed benefits, so we undervalue promised future outcomes. (Given a choice, we usually take $10 now as opposed to, say, $20 two years from now.) Environmentally speaking, this means we are far less likely to make lifestyle changes in order to ensure a safer future climate. Letting emotions determine how we assess risk presents its own problems. Almost certainly, we underestimate the danger of rising sea levels or epic droughts or other events that we’ve never experienced and seem far away in time and place. Worse, Weber’s research seems to help establish that we have a “finite pool of worry,” which means we’re unable to maintain our fear of climate change when a different problem — a plunging stock market, a personal emergency — comes along. We simply move one fear into the worry bin and one fear out. And even if we could remain persistently concerned about a warmer world? Weber described what she calls a 'single-action bias.' Prompted by a distressing emotional signal, we buy a more efficient furnace or insulate our attic or vote for a green candidate — a single action that effectively diminishes global warming as a motivating factor. And that leaves us where we started."

So fear won't work because, quite simply, it can't be sustained; at least not on one subject. With fear as an inadequate motivator for saving the future, perhaps, and yes I know it sounds trite, we should try love -- the love of our children to be specific.

We've all heard the tales of the mother who lifts the car to save the trapped child, the father who donates a kidney to save his daughter. Those things are true and real. Why should it be harder to buy a more fuel-efficient car or use recycled products?

We all know we're supposed to save for their college, get life insurance to provide for them if we get hit by lightning, why is this different?

Perhaps its time to ask ourselves this question: "Do we love our children enough to save the place they will live out the rest of their lives?"

The First Anniversary is Paper

2009-04-19T22:26:00.009-04:00

Like guilty spouses, we now confess -- we forgot our anniversary.

It was one year ago April 15, that The Thin Green Line bounded onto the Internet stage with a tiny little splash. A splash that we have cleverly managed to keep tiny by writing over-long entries that no one wants to read. (We cling to the illusion that the tiny splash will make big rippes into the world, it's not much, but it's all we've got.)

So, one year? And here we let it pass without so much as a card.

It's not that you don't mean the world to us dear reader, it's just that well, time gets away from you when you work at a place that used to employ nine reporters and now uses three to produce the same amount of copy.

That's no excuse we know, and we'll do better next year we promise.

As all guilty spouses know, the first anniversary is traditionally celebrated with paper.

But given that there is not much to celebrate at papers these days, and a card is just a waste of trees unless its made from recycled paper (and that's so hard to find at the last minute or, worse yet, when you're late).

So instead we bring you news about another kind of paper.

Specifically, toilet paper.

Yes, we know, you thought we had had our fun with this subject, with liberal applications of toilet humor spread tastelessly throughout a previous blog. But then, Kimberly-Clark, the giant Death Star of toilet paper companies, went and did what we told them to do.

Shamed, chagrined and no doubt intimidated by the dauntless reasoning and peerless prose of our March 12 post about the paucity of toilet paper made from recycled paper, Kimberly-Clark went ahead and, with dizzying corporate aplomb, launched a brand of paper products made from recycled paper.

It was with dumbfound amazement and then a misplaced sense of pride that we read this Reuters article, reporting this spectacular development.

"The launch this month of Scott Naturals makes Kimberly-Clark the first major paper products maker to have a full line that taps into the growing market for environmentally friendly products," the wire service reported.

We would beg to differ, as our beloved Marcal paper products have been made from recycled paper for years. But we don't quibble. We're all about the big picture here at The Thin Green Line.

Of course, still worried about our sensitive nether regions, Kimberly-Clark is only using 40 percent recycled material in its toilet paper, although paper towels will have 60 percent and napkins 80.

Perhaps we'll give them 40 percent of our business in exchange.

But hey, as big name polluters like Clorox see the light (green of course) we have to welcome the converts into the fold and allow them to see that light at their own pace.

In the meantime, we would just like to thank them for giving us another opportunity to use our toilet paper picture on the blog.

But then, you already know how easy we are to please. After all, we've been together for a whole year now.

Thou Shalt Recycle

2009-04-16T10:36:00.001-04:00

I had originally planned to write this entry at Christmas time, but time, as it tends to do during that time of year, got away from me.

But as I watched a group of pastors from different denominations gather at the green between Emmanuel Lutheran Church and Zions United Church of Christ Friday, it occurred to me that the prayer processional through Pottstown is, among other things, a rite of spring.

It is a rite that brings people of all different beliefs, however slight, together in the common cause of helping their community. Then I started thinking about how that common cause might be enlarged to include the planet we all share.

And suddenly it seemed that Easter, what is arguably a more significant holiday on the Christian calendar than Christmas, and which coincides so directly with the idea of new life that spring epitomizes, is an even better time to ask the question.

The question, as it was so succinctly put by this Chicago Tribune headline, is this: "Is God a Tree-Hugger?"

First, let's get some confessions out of the way. I don't go to church and I've never read The Bible.

Many of you might argue this makes me a poor choice, or even ineligible, to address this question. You might be right. Feel free to say so on your blog.

I have often been puzzled by the resistance some more fundamental Christians have toward environmental issues. To me, it seems counter-intuitive. After all, according to their beliefs, and those who advocate the unprovable theory of "Intelligent Design," God created the Earth.

As a full-blown supporter of scientific inquiry, you might be surprised to know that I am willing to concede this point, although not the way it is portrayed in the Bible, which again, I have never read. Literal interpretation of the Good Book suggests the planet is a few thousand years old, a stubborn insistence that flies in the face of incontrovertible physical evidence.

(God gave us brains too folks. Come on.)

But that same scientific evidence also suggests the universe was created by the Big Bang. Given that no scientist can offer a provable explanation for that event, it seems to me that the hand of the Big Guy is as good an explanation as any for the thing that started it all, and so I say thanks for life and all that.

But back to what puzzles me. If God created the Earth, the animals, the ecosystems, the perfectly coordinated interaction that makes life work here in any number of forms, would he really want us to be trashing it?

There is an argument that because God intends to destroy the Earth any day now, it doesn't matter what we do to it, but that seems more like a rationalization that a belief to me. What if the Rapture doesn't come for 50 or 100 years, what does that say about our love for our children or our grandchildren? Do we want to take the chance on leaving them a ravaged planet, barren of the resources needed to sustain life, a ruined paradise, just because we mis-read the schedule for Armageddon's arrival? Are we really that selfish? Is that terribly Christian of us?

Anyway, who is going to argue with a straight face that God is pro-pollution? Does God want us to fish and pollute the seas into dead zones? Does God want majestic old growth forests cut down so we can have softer toilet paper?

I may not have read the Bible folks, but I feel pretty secure in saying it doesn't tell us to "go forth and trash the place."

If indeed this planet is the product of "Intelligent Design," is it a good thing to be messing with the design by introducing a whole host of chemicals to the environment that were never part of the original model? Chemicals which are now found in our bodies during routine blood samples?

My favorite comment on this subject comes from a fellow named. J. Matthew Sleeth. Once an affluent doctor, he became "haunted" by the deaths of children; deaths he saw being caused by environmental factors. He gave up his practice, moved to Kentucky and became a Christian lecturer on being kinder to the Earth.

If you wonder what kind of things Sleeth talks about, consider this quote: "In the Bible, the first page has a tree -- the tree of life," he said. "The last page has a tree on it -- the tree of life. … The Earth is the Lord's. That's what the 24th Psalm says. And we've treated it like it's ours."

"Sleeth notes that when he speaks at churches, some ask, 'Won't people start worshipping trees?'"

He said he finds it ironic that the question is asked by those "who belong to the only religion on the planet that brings a tree into their house once a year, sings songs to it, decorates it, and puts little statues of their God underneath it."

I know all this as a result of this article in the Louisville Courier-Sentinel which featured Sleeth because he wrote the introduction to the Green Bible, a new version of an old book that is printed on recycled paper, using soy-based inks and which highlights passages having to do with the Earth in green.

(For those who live and die by spreadsheets, the Tribune has calculated that the Bible -- have I mentioned that I've never read it? -- "contains 1,000 references to the planet but only 490 references to heaven and 530 references to love.")

Called "Creation Care," the melding of Christianity and environmentalism is a growing movement. Last October, the student-initiated Renewal network gathered at Eastern University in Pennsylvania to plan their activities.

As reported by this article in the Christian Science Monitor, they had a new tool to work with. The "Green" Bible mentioned above.

"Along with the biblical text, the book includes a set of essays by theologians and conservationists (including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Brian McLaren, and Pope John Paul II). There’s a concordance on environmental subjects and a study guide on “green” biblical themes for use by individuals and church or campus groups," The Monitor reports.

"'Many younger people very much feel it is part of the Christian message to take care of the world,' says Michael Maudlin, coproject editor for HarperOne. 'So we wanted to give them a primer to help people understand that Earth care is part of the mandate God gives us.'"

"'It helps rectify a misperception that this is not a biblical issue,' says Peter Illyn, an evangelical pastor who founded an environmental stewardship group called Restoring Eden to foster awareness across the denominational spectrum. (The Green Bible comes in the New Revised Standard Version, which is accepted by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and the Orthodox.)"

All of which sounds to me like the kind of spring/Easter renewal Christians and environmentalists alike can get behind; maybe enough of one that I will finally get around to reading that book. I understand it has quite a following.

Cashing In on Sun and Earth

2009-04-10T01:09:00.003-04:00

Living on a limited budget as we do, we here at The Thin Green Line are sensitive to the fact that all too often, doing the right thing is not the cheapest thing.

Which is why we wanted to make you all aware of a couple of ideas out there in the idea-o-sphere (if this becomes Webster's new word of the year, we hereby formally lay legal and binding claim to it. Stuff THAT in your "truthiness" and smoke it Stephen Colbert!).

First of all, we'd like to tell you about an incentive from an industry long thought to be bereft of soul and all human feeling, unless of course you've been in a car crash or had your house burn down.

Yes, you've guessed it, we're talking about the insurance industry, which took us completely by surprise last month and announced discounts for folks who try to make their house more green.

According to this helpful release provided by the folks at the Pennsylvania Depar t m ent of Environmental Protection, at least one company, Donegal Insurance Group, will provide you with a 5 percent discount for installing solar electric panels on your house and another 5 percent discount for installing geo-thermal heat pumps to heat and cool your house.

(Shown at right is a geo-thermal plant, just a weeeeee bit bigger than the kind your house would use.)

And, if you own a small business, the state is offering 2 percent fixed interest 10-year loans for projects that reduce waste, pollution or energy use. The loans can be used to pay up to 75 percent of the cost, up to $100,000.

Click here for the link to that program.

If heating your hot water with the sun is your bag, consider that homeowners are eligible for a federal tax credit on solar heaters of up to 30 percent of the installed system's cost, with a cap of $2,000.

In this Feb. 9 Op-Ed piece for the New York Times, Amherst professor Larry Hunter argued that solar hot water is cheaper, simpler and more energy efficient than photovoltaic (in which solar energy is used to generate electricity for your house) and deserves a bigger slice of the stimulus pie.

Of course if you're devoted to photo-voltaic, The Thin Green Line has a morsel for you as well.

One of the frustrating things about being the first on your block with anything is you don't have a lot of bargaining power with the seller...unless if you got your whole block to buy it.!

Voila!

And so we bring you this link to a New York Times Magazine article about an entity called 1BOG.

So long as you are not so sensitive to the wave of "socialist" accusations sweeping out from the far right shouting machine, you may find savings from the "collective" purchasing of solar power. Just think of it like pitching in with your neighbor to share the cost of a fence dividing your two properties.

This how the Times described the company: "Owned by Virgance, a for-profit company based in San Francisco, 1BOG aims to make money by collecting what amounts to a referral fee from the solar installer, and some of the incentives it offers to consumers involve straightforward middleman functions: mastering the details of state, local and federal incentive programs that drastically lower costs; vetting solar-installation companies; and so on. Solar panels are, after all, a big-ticket item that few consumers know much about. (Costs vary, but under normal circumstances a $20,000 price tag is not unusual.) Finding the best installer and getting a fair price can be intimidating and bewildering."

Having seen "Obama-mania" sweep the country, the company collects customers through a campaign. "When 1BOG starts a “campaign” in a city, it relies on its consumer participants to recruit more consumer participants," the Times reports.

They've even hired a former Obama campaign coordinator to help. Whether or not this results in 1BOG-o-mania, it's too soon to tell.

In its first venture, with a group of 41 homes, it garnered a 20 percent discount in the price of installation, no small figure when you figure it can cost as much as $40,000 to install a 4.5 kilowatt system.

So far, the nearest the company has a group is Washington, D.C., but there is also one started in Bergen County, N.J., so Pennsylvania might be next.

We'll let you know...

In the meantime, consider this. If you think none of this affects you because you're just fine with the way things are, know that things will not stay the way they are.

The Obama administration and Congress are already moving toward regulations to reduce carbon emissions into the air, that means coal, currently the cheapest of the fossil fuels.

When coal gets more expensive, your electric bill will go up.

As this New York Times article shows, those worst hit by the price jumps may well be those least able to afford it.

One Third of the Birds

2009-04-07T08:45:00.011-04:00

The heavy hand of man is destroying the grassland habitat vital to the survival of the northern bobwhite, at left, whose northern range includes Pennsylvania.

Being trend setters here at The Thin Green Line, we are sometimes slow to recognize trends we haven't set.

So after having suggested our army of readers participate in the National Audubon Society's Christmas Bird Count, we began to wonder what kind of numbers in might produce.

Imagine our dismay when we stumbled across this March announcement by U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

The gist of the announcement was summed up with uncommon directness (for a government document): "nearly a third of the nation's 800 bird species are endangered, threatened or in significant decline due to habitat loss, invasive species, and other threats."

We may be math-phobic here at TTGL, but we suspect that one-third is a pretty big number to be endangered.

In addition to being pretty, singing sweetly and crapping all over your just washed car, birds are like frogs in that they are a bellwether of their environment. (There was a reason they had canaries in coal mines and it wasn't to add a dash of color to the gloom.)

The threats are primarily two-fold, invasive species and loss of habitat.

Invasive species are among the primary threats in Hawaii, where ground-dwelling birds that formerly had no predator now fall victim to rats, brought from ships, and cats brought in to control the rats. (It is the absurdity of the situation as much as the rhyming that reminds us of Dr. Suess here).

The thing over which we should have more control is the loss of habitat. The habitat most at risk these days is grassland. Having gotten religion on wetlands, many of those species are making a comeback as a result of conservation efforts.

But while it's not too hard to convince a builder not to erect a house in the middle of a swamp, it's harder when the property is grassland, seemingly perfect for a row of McMansions.

Which is why the northern bobwhite is among the more threatened species, highlighted in Salazar's release about the new bird population report.

This is nothing new to Pennsylvania hunters.

Several years ago, a Pennsylvania Game Commission report concluded the same thing.

Among other things, it noted "Pennsylvania has lost 1.1 million acres of farmland since the 1960s. Since that time, major declines have occurred in almost all groups of grassland-associated wildlife. A high proportion of the declining bird species in Pennsylvania are associated with grasslands. Nearly 90 percent of grassland birds monitored by the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) show declines; 43 percent of all grassland species show significant declines while none show significant increases in the state since 1980. In Pennsylvania, species such as the grasshopper sparrow, vesper sparrow, bobolink, eastern meadowlark, northern bobwhite quail, and ring-necked pheasant have declined by 80 percent or more since the mid 1960s.

Don't test us or anything, but we're pretty sure 80 and 90 percent is even more than one-third.

Call us crazy, but this looks like it could be a trend....

Humming a Different Tune

2009-04-06T08:48:00.006-04:00

It's hard to feel sorry for them.

Certainly, we here at The Thin Green Line don't want anyone to lose their job.

But as true believers in sustainability, we can't help but whisper a little "We told you so" at the looming demise of the auto industry's most conspicuous symbol of gas guzzling lunacy -- the Hummer.

Because the universe is rarely lacking in irony, we think back to the person who made the Hummer popular in the first place, now-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who, as we all know, has transmogrified into one of the nation's greenest and most progressive governors. Go figure.

Anyhoo, as if we needed any more examples of the ripple effect the collapse of the auto industry can have on our economy, we recently stumbled across this article in The New York Times (from which we shamelessly stole the cool photo above, so cool it almost made us want a Hummer) about how Hummer's pending demise is affecting it's largest dealer, based in Missouri.

In reality, most people who bought Hummer's use them in places like in this photo at right, smoothly paved suburban streets on which even a scooter has no trouble.

Those are the people to whom dealers like Jim Lynch sold the illusion that you could create the persona of a rugged, outdoor lifestyle simply by spending enough money on the floor of a fancy showroom.

And now, as the Times article points out, the risk he took is turning into a big loss.

In the end, any bet that is placed on an unsustainable product or practice is destined to lose. And the idea that we could forever support a vehicle that gets 10 miles to the gallon when there is a finite supply of oil in the world and most of it belongs to people who hate us, is definitely unsustainable.

The real tragedy here is that when that bet finally goes bad, too often it is we, the taxpayers, who are holding the marker.

You've Got Mail (Again! Geez Does This Stuff Ever Stop?)

2009-04-02T10:02:00.009-04:00

Last week, a mail miracle occurred.

I didn't get any.

Sitting on my front porch with a book (yes, made from paper), I watched in wonder as our friendly neighborhood carrier passed by and said "nothing today."

I was flabbergasted.

Dumbfounded.

Non-plussed.

We at Thin Green Line's Corporate Mega-Headquarters and luxury green spa were puzzled because we have not yet done what we put on our "to do" list months ago -- sign up with 41 pounds.org

We should. After all, what's not to like?

For $41, they stop all junk mail to your house for five years.

No credit card offers to shred or unwanted catalogs; one-hundred-plus trees not harvested to make the junk; 28 billion gallons of water kept clean.

And, more than two-thirds of the fee you pay is donated to the green charity of your choice.

(We are compelled to report here that, sadly, despite vociferous argumentation by the Thin Green Line's financial team -- all of whom have paid their taxes, for the most part -- those snobs at the IRS insist we are not a charity and you cannot name us at the "charity of your choice." Apparently, we also do not qualify for a government bail-out despite making many, many financial mistakes with other people's money. Sad as this no doubt makes you, believe you us, it makes US much sadder.)

Anyway, back to our over-burdened mailman. Despite his tendency to deliver unwanted bills, he's a great guy who unfortunately is tasked with carrying a whole lot of other stuff we don't want; in other words, junk mail.

Now those in the business like to call it "direct mail," as in mail that goes "direct"ly into the trash.

There is a little less of it these days, primarily because a national credit crisis has a tendency to dry up myriad credit card offers from companies that no longer feel safe giving credit to Fort Knox, much less environmentalist losers trying to make a better world.

But let's not kid ourselves, its out there...waiting... and, like an Arnold Schwarzenegger cameo in the next Terminator movie, it will be back!

So now comes the spot in our blog where we bombard you with numbers to prove our incontrovertible point; numbers carefully researched by a guy sitting at home in sweat pants reading The New York Times.

According to our crack research department, producing junk mail produces more carbon dioxide than nine million cars.

Now those readers who did not respond to Earth Hour's call last month to shut down all unnecessary lighting for one-hour by declaring in self-righteous (and mildly paranoid) defiance that you would turn on lights you don't even own, probably know that nasty old CO2 is the planet's number one greenhouse gas.

In fact, our (unwitting) research partners at the Times inform us here that a recent report by Forest Ethics -- with the fabulously clever title of "Do Not Mail: Climate Change Enclosed" -- found "mail advertisements create 51.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases each year — equivalent to the emissions generated by heating about 13 million homes during the winter, or mowing more than 20 billion lawns. "

Worse yet, only about 40 percent of junk mail gets recycled, probably because those of us who cannot afford to have our credit rating get any worse have to systematically shred each of those sounds-too-good-to-be-true-because-they-are credit card offers to prevent dumpster divers from stealing our slightly tarnished good name.

Those who (literally) bring you your junk mail, the U.S. Postal Service, are doing their part, installing 4,000 recycling stations near post office boxes so as much can be captured there as possible.

The Post Office is even urging direct mailers to follow their lead, providing a list of things they can do to green their product such as providing people the chance to "opt out" of being on their list and using recycled paper and biodegradable inks for their product.

But those direct mailers are a stubborn lot.

View here, if you have the stomach for it, an interview with Michael J. Critelli, 59, executive chairman of the mailing company Pitney Bowes, who uses a defense for junk mail that is as time-honored as it is disingenuous, best summarized as "we're not as bad as our competition."

Critelli argues that the trees used to make junk mail are replaced with new trees (so no harm, no foul); that junk mail makes up only 2 percent of landfill waste (what's 2 percent among friends?); and that spam, the bastard off-spring of junk mail, has an even greater environmental cost because of all the electricity those computer serves require.

All of which is completely true and, of course, completely besides the point.

To take the last point first, for this argument about spam to have weight, you have to assume that doing away with junk mail results in an increase in spam. We took a poll here at the Thin Green Line office tower complex and decided we could live with doing away with both. It also presumes we'll swallow in slack-jawed conformity that because the harm the other guy is causing is worse, we won't care about the harm you are doing.

This line of logic was dis-proved once and for all in the famous case of Crook Vs. Homeowner, renowned for the burglar's famous line, "hey pal, you should stop worrying that I'm stealing your TV, because I saw your neighbor kick your cat!"

Further, there is an environmental cost to harvesting those junk mail trees, replaced or not, and such mono-culture replants are rarely as diverse or as stable as old-growth forests; not to mention the greenhouse gases emitted by the chainsaws, loaders, helicopters (yes, we've seen it on The History Channel so it must be true) and paper mills.

Lastly, we doubt anyone would argue that reducing landfill waste by another two percent would be anything but a good thing.

Besides, how can you take seriously a guy who, when asked if some Americans like to get junk mail, replied "absolutely."

Forgive us, Mr. Critielli, if, when we ask ourselves this leading question -- "Do you think a guy whose salary is paid by junk mail will say anything to defend it no matter how damning the evidence of its harm?" -- we answer by saying "absolutely."

Now, if you all will excuse me, I have the clear the junk mail off my dining room table.

Short Attention Span Theater

2009-03-23T22:22:00.003-04:00

Look, over there, a shiny object!

Mmmmm, Pretty.....

And so it goes with this nation's ability to keep focused on what's important.

Yes, gasoline prices are down. So, obviously, they will stay down forever, never to rise again.

Yes, and monkeys will fly out of my butt.

With the drop in gasoline prices, Americans and their famously long-sighted view of the world and the events to come, are dropping hybrid cars just as fast.

As this Los Angeles Times article notes, sales of hybrid vehicles are about as hot as my salsa dancing moves on "Overweight Clumsy Bald Guy Night" on Dancing with the Stars.

Not that I thought I would ever write these words, but I feel sorry for executives in Detroit.

After years of insisting that Americans only want big, gas-guzzling cars, we prove them right with something as simple and transitory as low gas prices, just as the government is forcing them to come out with more fuel efficient vehicles.

Why is saving money on gas only popular when it's wildly overpriced? Are we really that stupid?

Wait! Don't answer that. Your answer will depress me.

It seems we really are that fickle and short-sighted. Now granted, so few people are buying ANY kind of new car these days that hybrids shouldn't feel slighted.

In fact recent articles have suggested that buying a new car is a better deal than buying a used one, because so many people worried about the economy think they can't afford a new car and thus, are driving up prices in the used car market.

But the poor hybrids are suffering out of proportion to their share of the overall market it seems.

"In July, U.S. Toyota dealers didn't have enough Prius models in stock to last two days, and many were charging thousands of dollars above sticker price for the few they had.Today there are about 80 days' worth on hand, and dealers are working much harder -- even with the help of $500 factory rebates -- to move the egg-shaped gas-savers off lots," the L.A. Times reported.

Not that my beloved Hondas are doing any better: "This month, Honda is offering $2,000 in cash, financing and leasing incentives to buyers of the formerly sold-out Civic hybrid," the Times reports.

"The automakers are in the situation of needing to pacify politicians that are in the position to bail them out with expensive fuel-efficient cars," said Rebecca Lindland, auto analyst with IHS Global Insight. "But shouldn't it be more about satisfying the needs of the American consumer?"

Well yes, that would be true if the American consumer were not such an IDIOT!

Let's remember the American consumer once stood in line to buy pet rocks.

The more important thing to remember here is we need to wean ourselves off foreign oil in the same way the junkie needs to break his heroin habit. The fact that the dealer lowers the price when you're in rehab is no reason to pick up the habit again.

But some of those consumers are smart.

Consider the case of Chad Gallagher.

A lawyer in Berkeley, Chad "took advantage of a Presidents Day promotion, plus a healthy measure of dealer desperation, to buy a fully loaded Prius last month for $5,000 under sticker price.'We got the touring package, leather seats, navigation, Bluetooth, everything,' Gallagher said. 'I think they were just happy to sell the thing.'

Do the Right Thing

2009-03-21T11:38:00.012-04:00

This here is one of them there good news/bad news/good news stories.

Now when I was a little tyke in green tights, long before I had conceived of the majestic literary masterpiece that is the Thin Green Line, I had a thing about whales.

It began when I was a lad at Copper Beech Middle School in the Lakeland School District of Westchester County, NY.

There, a super-cool music teacher whose name is now sadly lost in the rusted steel trap of my mind, introduced the close-packed class (music was taught in closets even back then) to the contemporary music of Gordon Lightfoot.

What captured my imagination was a song titled "Ode to Big Blue" which was about the Blue Whale. I was hooked at the first hearing.

For a brief and moderatly embarassing time, I thought I was hooked on Gordon Lightfoot, which led to many unfortunate hours for my family while I blasted greedily purchased Gordon Lightfoot albums in an attempt to re-capture the feeling of that first listen.

After a time, I came to realize the feeling came from a sense of wonder about whales, and not from Lightfoot's monotone singing style (although I still remember all the words to "Second Cup of Coffee" and the unfortunate hit, "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.")

What followed was a period in my "tweens" and early adolesence during which I dedicated myself to whatever I could learn about whales. I learned a lot and tore photographs from articles about whales in National Geographic and glued them to incredibly heavy pieces of plywood I found around the house. These I hung on my walls using nails larger than some whale bones you might find.

(When my mother sold our house, I'm sure the hundreds of holes in the honeycombed walls of my room brought the price of the house down significantly.)

I decided I would be a marine biologist, combining my love of the ocean with my interest in cetaceans. (See, I was learning all sorts of scientific words and stuff).

Unfortunately, science turned out to require an understanding of math, a subject about which I had developed a phobia thanks to the public humiliation teaching style of a less-cool teacher in the Lakeland School District. (Her name I remember clearly, but I will spare her -- if she's still alive -- the shame with which she sought to motivate me.)

Regardless, I realized poor math skills would make my career as a scientist woefully lacking in accurate data.

Then I decided I would be an "international lawyer" dedicated to the preservation of the species in the world's courts of law, fighting the lonely fight to save creatures who would never know my name or touch. Damn noble of me don't you think?

Although I confess to being a halfway decent arguer, this ambition too fell by the wayside, probably because of how much work it threatened to require. (Noble, but lazy, the perfect description of my teen years.)

Then, having gently rejected my mother's fondest wish that I become a park ranger, I pursued her worst nightmare and became a writer, like my father, doomed to a life of flying fancies, past participles and empty bank accounts.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that throughout it all, I never lost my interest in whales, an interest which has been tickled by recent events.

The first was this article in The New York Times, which reports that conservation and protection efforts actually worked and this slow-moving cetacean is on the rebound.

"North Atlantic right whales, which can grow up to 55 feet long and weigh up to 70 tons, were the 'right' whales for 18th- and 19th-century whalers because they are rich in oil and baleen, move slowly, keep close to shore and float when they die," the Times sumarized: all terrible characteristics for a species trying to survive its initial contact with mankind. It was "right" for us, not them.

By 1900, it was estimated that as few as 100 remained, literally hunted to extinction, the dodo of the seas.

But recently, the good news came fast and furious, as the Times outlined:

Recent changes in shipping lanes, some compulsory and others voluntary, seem to be reducing collisions between whales and vessels.

The Bush administration agreed last year to lower speed limits for large vessels in coastal waters where right whales congregate. (Yes, Bush deserves credit. You heard it here first!)

Fishing authorities in the United States are beginning to impose gear restrictions designed to reduce the chances whales and other marine mammals will be entangled in fishing lines. Canada is considering similar steps.

In December, researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration spotted an unusually large aggregation of right whales in the Gulf of Maine. A month later, a right whale turned up in the Azores, a first since the early 20th century.

And last year, probably for the first time since the 1600s, not one North Atlantic right whale died at human hands.

We shouldn't be surprised that it took so long. The Right Whale does everything slowly: slow swimmer, slow breeder; slow to make a comeback.

All of which is part of what so fascinated me as a kid. They are so different from us and, quite possibly, smarter than us (something which a regular reading of The Mercury's Sound Off column quickly convinces me is easily achieved).

The ratio of the size of a cetacean's brain, in relation to its spinal cord -- one way scientists measure a species' intelligence -- is actually greater than mankind's. They are evolved from creatures who went back to the sea after living on land for a time. And their slow grace underwater is a wonder to behold.

And no sound more perfectly captures the spirit of the ocean itself, than the mournful mysterious sound of whale calls underwater.

But before I could go down to the basement and dig up my old Gordon Lightfoot records, I made the mistake of reading The Mercury.

There I found this article from the Associated Press, about how the world's financial crisis had had an unexpected victim -- a program that monitored these very creatures just as their comeback so desperately needs to be documented.

The monitoring program, which tracked whales as they passed New York Harbor on their way to their New England feeding grounds, is run by Cornell University and it quite simply ran out of money.

If you want to know more, click here.

(Geek Alert!: And no, the above link does not bring you to a Web site for Star Trek IV! Fellow geeks will get this joke.)

I am realist enough to know that as we fend off a Depression, making a pitch for more public money to monitor whales is unlikely to make it to the top of the priority list.

But rather than lure me into despair, the universe conspired to provide a dollop of hope, in the most unlikely of places -- a Pottstown School Board meeting.

As it does every month, the meeting began with the winners of the writing awards reading their work, and this month's readers were from Barth Elementary School.

I did not hear them all, arriving late as usual, but I did arrive in time to hear a composition by a young man whose name I did not catch at the time and have not yet discovered. (I will however.)

His essay was about how important it is to protect Humpback Whales and laid out all the reasons, not the least of which is how little we know about them.

I realized another generation is picking up the torch and this time, might succeed in becoming a scientist, an expert rather than just an enthusiast.

I wonder if he would be interested in my Gordon Lightfoot collection....

UPDATE:

This is the essay written by the Barth student, Carlos Fuentes-Brown, seen at left reading his essay:

My favorite animal is a humpback whale. A humpback whale can weigh roughly
30,000 pounds. It can have gray or blue gray skin. It eats krill and small fish and it can
eat 1000 pounds of food a day. The humpback whale is a large mammal that can grow
50 feet long. The humpback whale can be found in all oceans, but is an endangered
animal. It can sing songs that can be heard far away. Sometimes a pod of them sing and
can be heard far away. Humpback whales are the best animal.

Carlos Fuentes-Brown

Taking a Hard Line on Soft Tissue

2009-03-12T00:10:00.003-04:00

Now I know The Thin Green Line should be writing about more serious things, things like Obama's stimulus package and the green initiatives it contains.

And we'll get to it, we promise. Our army of financial analysts is going over the figures as you read this.

But in the meantime, let's face it; sometimes, you just can't resist the low-hanging fruit and by that I mean a story about toilet paper.

Infantile? Yes.

Sophomoric? You bet.

But we here at The Thin Green Line have the raw guts to stand up and say what needs to be said about soft and puffy toilet paper. It stinks! (And we mean before you use it, not after, although, well, it stinks then too.)

Hey, take it easy, don't get your knickers in a twist, even the staid grey lady, The New York Times, had fun with this article. After all, some newsroom jokester succumbed to temptation as well and put Mr. Whipple in the headline. We would never sink so low.

All joking aside, this is a pretty sad commentary on us, that a nation that likes to brag its people are the toughest on the global block, is populated with such pampered milksops that we need ultra soft TP to clean our bums.

Here's the straight poop, toilet paper, more than anything else, can most easily be made from recycled paper. In Europe, this kind of TP makes up 20 percent of the market, although it should be more at least they're trying people.

Here in the U.S.? That percentage of the market is a paltry 2 percent. That's pathetic folks and makes us flush with indignation.

The reason this is important is it takes trees to make TP soft. "Millions of trees harvested in North America and in Latin American countries, including some percentage of trees from rare old-growth forests in Canada," just for a few moments passing comfort for our sensitive nether regions.

Americans use an average of 23.6 rolls per capita a year, that's 23 opportunities a year to help create a market for all that paper we're starting to recycle. And folks, those jobs will stay here in the U.S.

According to the Times, "25 percent to 50 percent of the pulp used to make toilet paper in this country comes from tree farms in South America and the United States. The rest, environmental groups say, comes mostly from old, second-growth forests that serve as important absorbers of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming. In addition, some of the pulp comes from the last virgin North American forests."

Do we really want to destroy something so valuable, and trash our planet for something so trivial? Talk about not giving a crap!

Marcal, a brand easily found on the shelves of your local grocer, makes all its TP from recycled fiber, although it doesn't make as much noise about it as it probably should.

And if you're really hung up on having "premium" toilet paper, you can always buy some from places like Seventh Generation that charge more.

But there's hope in despair. As the economy tanks, sales of "premium" toilet paper are down.

And let's think about that phrase for a moment people. "Premium toilet paper" should be considered a premium oxymoron.

Why in the world do we need something to be "premium" when we immediately flush it down the toilet never to be used (or enjoyed) again? Doing so, in my opinion, makes someone a real ass.

OK, we're done with the puns now.

Sorry to be so cheeky.

Ooops, OK, now we're really done.

The (Green) Ties That Bind

2009-03-10T10:24:00.005-04:00

With 16 years under my belt, I can definitely say that being married is better than not being married.

There are, of course, trade-offs, but on the whole, it's a definite plus.

Now, there's something new to add to the "plus" column -- nothing less than saving the world, at least that's what this Reuters article claims.

Apparently, "staying married is better for the planet because divorce leads the newly single to live more wasteful lifestyles," at least in the opinion of the Australian lawmaker quoted in the story.

"When couples separate, they needed more rooms, more electricity and more water. This increased their carbon footprint," Sen. Steve Fielding told a senate hearing.

"Such a 'resource-inefficient lifestyle' means it would be better for the planet if couples stayed married, he said."

I can't say I've ever heard of the mid-life crisis guy with the new hair plugs, new red sports car and new vapid trophy wife ever referred to as living a "resource-inefficient lifestyle," but Sen. Fielding calls 'em as he sees 'em.

At least there's finally something those on the far left and the far right can agree on. Marriage? Good for everybody.

By the way, this Fielding fellow? He leads Australia's "Family First" Party and he grew up in a family of 16 children and has been married for 22 years, so he knows a thing or two about his subject matter.

So don't just stay together "for the children" folks, do it for us all.

Not so Idle Hands

2009-03-05T01:07:00.000-05:00

They say idle hands are the devil's workshop, but apparently idling diesel engines are Global Warming's workshop.

Which, presumably, is why a new state law makes it illegal for trucks and buses to idle in the same place for more than five minutes, without turning off their engines.

At least that's what it says in this article from the Reading Eagle, (who says we're scared of our competition? We're just scared period.) sent to us by our most loyal reader, Thomas Mounce of Birdsboro.

According to the article: "Each year, idling trucks in Pennsylvania spewed more than 32,000 tons of nitrogen oxide and 210,000 tons of carbon dioxide, which are greenhouse gases blamed for global warming."

The idea, apparently, is to keep them from spewing when they're not moving.

Truckers argue that they need to idle their trucks to prevent them from freezing up in cold temperatures, and to run their air conditioning when they're sleeping in warm temperatures.

Ever understanding, the Commonwealth has given long-haul truckers one year to find an alternative power source. One already exists however. Many truck stops are now equipped by a company called "IdleAire," as seen on Modern Marvels as well as mention in the aforementioned article.

These connections provide phone, Internet and electrical connections as well as air conditioning for the idled trucker. (Sounds like a good investment to make if any of us had any money.)

As for school buses, they have to shut their engines off when they're parked at school waiting for the little ones, thus sparing our children the dreaded walk of death, increasing their chances of developing asthma while they look for their ride home.

Of course, while this is all well and good, there's little the law does for this...

Because try as we might, we can't seem to outlaw traffic jams.

Which is not to say this law does not at least make a dent.

And, according to this Associated Press story, published in The Philadelphia Inquirer (see? We really have no fear of competition!), we need all the dents we can get.

The story tells us that the fun folks over at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, those merry pranksters who first alerted us to the dangers of a warmer Earth, have another warning for us, a warmer warning actually.

To put a finer point on it, we're warmer than we thought we were already and the likelihood of the ever-warmer temperatures causing more severe weather just keep getting higher and higher.

"Now, researchers say, 'increases in drought, heat waves and floods are projected in many regions and would have adverse impacts, including increased water stress, wildfire frequency and flood risks starting at less than [1.8 degrees] of additional warming above 1990 levels.'"

"Indeed, 'it is now more likely than not that human activity has contributed to observed increases in heat waves, intense precipitation events, and the intensity of tropical cyclones,' concluded the researchers, led by Joel B. Smith of Stratus Consulting Inc., in Boulder, Colo."

Boy those guys really know how to snuff out a good time don't they?

But apparently, we haven't let a little cold dose of reality in the face stop us.

After all, "The new report, in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, comes a week after Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that humans are now adding carbon to the atmosphere even faster than in the 1990s," AP reported.

"Carbon emissions have been growing at 3.5 percent per year since 2000, up sharply from the 0.9 percent per year in the 1990s, Field said."

Boy, we sure know how to throw a party don't we?

No one can accuse us of having idle hands.

Worth a Thousand Words

2009-03-03T15:54:00.005-05:00

As a reporter at a local newspaper, I sometimes describe my job to people as "filling in the space around the photos."

In my world, "art," as photos are called, is king.

Pitch any story to any editor and the first question most often asked is "is there any art with it?"

So when Liz Brooking, the marketing and communications director at the Stroud Water Research Center in Avondale, Chester County, sent me this photo and asked if I thought there would be any interest in promoting it, I was an easy sell.

That's because the name of this presentation is "The Power of Photography."

If you doubt it, ask yourself what you remember about the protests in Tianamen Square, the thousands and thousands of words written and spoken about it, or the iconic image of the lone protester standing in front of a tank, refusing to give way.

The presentation at Stroud takes place on Wednesday, March 11 and is free and open to the public.

The feature red presenter will be photographer and Chester County native Bob Caputo.

According to Brooking, Caputo's "photography is stunning and adventures well worth hearing about. It is our hope that an education series will introduce new audiences to the wonderful watershed education programs we offer to both children and adults."

A Chester County resident, Caputo is also a world traveler, adventurer, and twenty-eight year veteran photographer for National Geographic magazine. Caputo will present images from his travels and share his insights and perspective on an innovative education program he helped Stroud educators produce called Mountaintop to Tap. Seating is limited. The event is free—and open to the public.$20 Raffle for a signed Bob Caputo print; proceeds to benefit Stroud Water Research Center.

To learn more about the Stroud Water Research Center, click here.

For directions, click here.

Slime is the Earth's Best Friend

2009-02-24T18:49:00.006-05:00

"I collect spores, molds and fungus" is one of the classier lines in "Ghostbusters," the 1980s blockbuster which is my 10-year old's newest favorite movie.

We should throw algae in there as well.

Never a big fan, I tend to think of it as the stuff that makes me want to stop swimming in the local swimming hole.

But algae has a green side (pun intended) that falls into the "everything-old-is-new-again" category.

It seems that millions of years ago (for those non-creationists out there) algae saved the world, and we may just need it to do so again.

Way back before there was a Thin Green Line, or a Mercury for that matter, the earth was an inhospitable place; made so, no doubt, by the absence of a good local newspaper ... among other things, like clouds of poisonous gas.

But it turns out that algae likes poisonous gas, and when it eats poisonous gas, it makes the kind of gas we can all appreciate -- oxygen.

According to this story in Reuters, scientists now think algae can be used to make fuel. After all, it has done so before.

Not only did the algae turn sunlight and carbon dioxide into oxygen and sugars through photosynthesis, when it died it had the good sense to float to the bottom of the sea and, after a few dozen millennia, turn itself into some of the oil we now burn today.

"But why wait?" say modern scientists.

According to the article: "The race is now on to find economic ways to turn algae, one of the planet's oldest life forms, into vegetable oil that can be made into biodiesel, jet fuel, other fuels and plastic products.

'So we are harvesting sunshine directly using algae, then we are extracting that stored energy in the form of oil from the alga and then using that to make fuels and other non-petroleum based products,' Skill said.

He predicted that industry will be cultivating algae in viable quantities for commercial oil production with a decade.

Such fuels are considered to be net carbon neutral because the algae absorb greenhouse gases when they grow."

So buy your algae stock now folks, it's the slime of the future!

The Shape of Things to Come

2009-02-19T01:28:00.002-05:00

Who says we at The Thin Green Line don't have a little grease under our fingernails?

Everyone? O.K., you're right. We can barely check our own tire pressure without help.

But that's OK. Living and writing in a car town and trying to convince car folks, who judge a vehicle by things like horsepower and torque, that they should also be worried about emissions is no easy task.

Not that we're complaining.....OK, maybe we are a little bit.

Anyway, in attempt to convince car folks that green can be cool, we present this link, to a slideshow on the New York Times web site, from which we have shamelessly and boldly copied the above photo. No, it's real and it's green baby. Go check it out.

But also, because we cannot completely deny our inner geek, we also present the below photo which, we confess, we think is cool too. It was dubbed "the itty bitty city car."

Come on. You have to admit, it's kind of cute, like the car equivalent of a kitten, but a kitten you can drive!

Beware! Giant Snakes in Your Future

2009-02-17T09:28:00.007-05:00

LOOK! DOWN ON THE GROUND, IT'S A SNAKE! IT'S A MONSTER! IT'S SUPER-SNAKE!!!

You have to love this story, because it reminds us that this earth on which we're riding is not a static thing (not to be confused with static cling).

And besides, how many times in your life do you get to type the phrase "Super Snake?"

Here we see a Los Angeles Times photo of a python, there to show you the scale of what he (or she) is crawling on.

It is a fossil of a vertebrae of a previously undiscovered species of snake justly named "Titanoboa."

According to this story in the Los Angeles Times, recently discovered remains of Titanoboa indicate it weighed 2,500 pounds, was as long as a school bus and could swallow a crocodile.

This, indeed, makes an anaconda, currently the world's largest snake, look like a red wiggler.

Found in an open coal pit in Columbia, where a substance, when burned, may just ensure that some other species we now know will become extinct, Titanoboa required a warmer climate than we have today.

As the Times reported: "Because snakes and other reptiles are coldblooded -- technically, poikilothermic -- they rely on heat in the environment. Generally, the farther from the equator that a reptile lives, the smaller it has to be.Extrapolating from the energy requirements of modern snakes, the team estimated that Titanoboa required an average temperature of 86 to 93 degrees Fahrenheit, somewhat higher than the modern average of about 83 degrees in coastal Colombia."

So there you have it folks, everything old, and by this we mean REALLY OLD, is new again. The more coal we burn, the warmer we make the earth, the more likely that our great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren will be fending off attacks by giant snakes.

Just one more reason to do what we can to stop global warming or, as my friend Sue Fordyce at the Schuylkill River National Heritage Area suggested at the end of one of my previous posts, "climate change."

Whatever you want to call it, I call the threat of bringing back the era of giant snakes one more reason to lower your carbon foot-print, although it would make a great summer blockbuster...paging Joel Schumacher!

Across the Road Again

2009-02-14T10:36:00.007-05:00

Blogger's note: Reporters have a love/hate relationship with press releases. They often convey necessary information and they all too often offer the temptation of copying them word for word and then slapping your by-line on top so you can play solitaire for the rest of your shift.

Other times, they are so poorly written, lacking crucial information like a date, or so obtuse as to be completely useless.

What appears below is none of those.

Arriving in my e-mail box was information on an event unique to North Coventry that I was hard-pressed to improve. Also being hard-pressed for time, I chose simply the dreaded "copy and paste" option and present it below unchanged from its original, well-written form.

Hats off to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection not only for providing this vital information about Norco's famous salamander and frog migration, but also for putting out a cleverly worded press release. (I suspect it was written by a former reporter.)

Why did the salamander cross the road? (a) To get to the vernal pool; (b) To ensure survival of the species; (c) To watch humans run across the road in reflective gear carrying buckets of amphibians; or (d) All of the above.

If you answered (d), you know it’s that time of year again, when Friends of Amphibians gather in North Coventry Township, armed with flashlights and buckets, to help hundreds of salamanders and frogs cross St. Peters Road without mishap.

The migration usually occurs at the end of February or early March, when temperatures are above freezing and weather conditions are damp or rainy. Unfortunately, humans never know when amphibians will choose to migrate, so the Green Valleys Association, which coordinates the migration, is looking for motivated volunteers with flexible schedules.

Traffic does not stop during the assisted migration, so only adult volunteers may participate.

In 2008, the group assisted 299 spotted salamanders, 27 Jefferson salamanders and 228 wood frogs over a three-night period.

Adult friends who would like to participate in this year’s migration may contact Kim White at kim.a.white@gmail.com.

Where's the Warm in Global Warming?

2009-02-09T00:58:00.000-05:00

It has become customary among global warming deniers to remark during winter's coldest days that global warming can't possibly be true when it is so cold outside.

So let me beat them to the punch.

Man is it f*#%ing cold outside!

How cold is it? It' so cold snowmen are massing for their final assault on humanity. (See above)

How cold it it? I saw a guy try to light a cigarette on the street today and the flame froze.

How cold it is? I saw a polar bear holding a sign that read "Will Work for tickets to Florida."

Hell, they even had freezing temperatures in Florida this week. Hell, that's like hell freezing over. How do I know? Let's just say I have sources.

It's so cold that I couldn't get into my car when I went out this morning. It had a bit of an ice problem.

Then, when I gave up, I went down to Riverfront Park here in Pottstown for a brisk walk along the Schuylkill.

Well let me tell you, what I saw nearly took my breath (and my body heat) away.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

Well they say timing really is everything and that is apparently true for blogs as well.

Fast-forward three days. When I started this one, it was MF cold outside and of course now, it's been 60 for two days.

Hey wait, it's warmer, that must mean global warming is real!

And it's real right here in Pennsylvania. How do I know? The Union of Concerned Scientists came to Berks County and told us so.

When they came in October, they said "The Pennsylvania we know and love today might not be here in our children's lifetime," at least according to this article in The Reading Eagle (if you can believe anything they report).

According to their study, accessible by clicking here, a broad number of changes are in store for the Keystone State as a result of our carbon emission lifestyle.

Here are a few:

Yields of Concord grapes, sweet corn and some kinds of apples will decrease as temps rise and pests have an easier time in warmer climes;

Widespread ski resort closures will occur, along with a decrease in snowmobiling (no great loss there);

By 2040, our climate will be more like Virginia and North Carolina than the place that made Valley Forge famous because of its winters. By 2070, it could well feel like Georgia here.

Here's another way to look at it, by 2039, the number of days hotter than 90 degrees will double, more than 70 days a year for us along with a 10 percent increase in precipitation. Can anyone say "the Manatawny is flooding ... again"?

From 1961 to 1990, Philadelphia had about 20 days a year over 90 degrees, according to a handy chart in the report. By 2099, we will see more than 80 such days.

Not that we didn't do some of this ourselves. According to the scientists, Pennsylvania contributes 1 percent of total global emissions of CO2, and is the third highest in the U.S., behind only Texas and California.

There's another reason to worry about global warming -- it might kill you.

According to a report issued by the EPA (link not available either to the report of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune story that reported on it), climate change is "unequivocal" and blame is placed squarely on humanity's shoulders.

The report said as temperatures rise, extreme weather events; diseases borne by ticks and other organisms and an increase in asthma attacks cause by higher levels of pollen and smog will kill more people. (It was unclear whether that will be offset by fewer people freezing to death.)

And, because no environmental column would be complete without a swipe at the Bush administration's record on this issue, the Star-Tribune reported several months ago (yes I am a pack rat and save all kinds of things) that the former administration tried to "bury" the report so as not to have to regulate greenhouse gases.

In the governmental equivalent of sticking its fingers in its ears and saying loudly "I can't hear you lalalalalalalala," the former White House staff chose to deal with this issue by refusing to open e-mails about it from the EPA (this after Darth Cheney's office brazenly deleted testimony on the science made to a Congressional panel.)

Unfortunately for us all, what they don't know can hurt us.

Why Newspapers Matter

2009-02-05T09:22:00.009-05:00

Chances are, you've never heard of Susanne Rust or Meg Kissinger, unless, maybe, if you live in Milwaukee.

I had certainly never heard of them and I have never met them. But I want to thank them nonetheless.

Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger are members of an endangered species -- investigative newspaper reporters. And by all indications, they're pretty good ones.

By that I mean they pursued a story that was not sexy, that would not make them famous and was unlikely to hold the attention of most Americans. Why? Because it was important and because it may not have been something most people would initially "want" to know, but it is something they "need" to know.

The story is about a chemical, known as bisphenol A.

Never heard of it?

That makes two of us, until, that is, I stumbled across their on-line stories posted (here and here) on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Web site.

Now normally, despite being the greenie that I am, I would not rush downstairs in the morning to speedy quick read a report on bisphenol A before my morning coffee. I mean come folks, I may be a geek but I have a life you know.

But luckily, these two reporters did and now, I may think twice about what I put in my microwave.

Now experts on the chemical industry, as evidenced by the newspaper's superlative series (how's that for $10 word alliteration?), these reporters and their editors have uncovered the places this chemical is found and the manner in which the chemical, which disrupts your endocrine system and can affect how children's brains develop, enters our bodies.

Take it from a guy who has read more than his share of technical scientific reports on everything from TCE to stream bank restoration, this was no walk in the park.

Having figured out something was fishy with this chemical, these two then did what nosy reporters are supposed to do, they looked at the people involved and asked the obvious question: where were the government regulators who are supposed to protect us from things like this?

The all-too-familiar answer was: in bed with the industry they were supposed to regulate.

It wasn't bad enough that, as they reported here: "A retired medical supply manufacturer who considers bisphenol A to be 'perfectly safe' gave $5 million to the research center of Martin Philbert, chairman of the Food and Drug Administration panel about to make a pivotal ruling on the chemical's safety."

Or, as they reported here that: "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency routinely allows companies to keep new information about their chemicals secret, including compounds that have been shown to cause cancer and respiratory problems."

Or even here: "A flame retardant that was taken out of children's pajamas more than 30 years ago after it was found to cause cancer is being used with increasing regularity in furniture, paint - even baby carriers and bassinets - and manufacturers are under no obligation to let the public know about it."

But then there was what I consider to be the worst (best) of all. Something that has become all too typical in a country that demands protection it is often unwilling to pay for, and an all-too-familiar arrangement for those familiar with how the Bush White House worked under the Tom DeLay-dominated Congress: "A government report claiming that bisphenol A is safe was written largely by the plastics industry and others with a financial stake in the controversial chemical, the Journal Sentinel found."

Aside from the obvious "fox watching the hen house" cliches, perhaps the most important words in that last sentence are "the Journal Sentinel found."

Not "CNN has found," or "Fox News has found," or "ABC News has found."

Not "ijuststartedmyownwebsitesoimustbeareporternow.com has found," or "yahoonews has found," or even "The Thin Green Line has found."

Because stories like that, despite the fact that it could result in protecting babies (born and un-born I might point out) don't lend themselves to quick and easy sound-bites in Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room.

And they require work.

Not the "can you get a shot of that guy while I ambush him in the parking lot" work either.

No, they required the combined skills of painstaking research, experience-informed intuition and not-taking-no-comment-for-an-answer that are part and parcel of being a good investigative news reporter.

That is not work that is done by yahoo, or google. They get their news from wire services, which, more often than not, get their news from the very newspapers that the Web is putting out of business.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is surely a business, but I doubt this series of stories brought in extra revenue, increased circulation or resulted in a crush of advertisers clamoring to be seen in its pages.

I doubt its stock rose because of this series.

Why should you care?

Because when those newspapers are gone, who will pay people like Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger to expose a danger we and our babies face every day, a danger from which our government (as they so diligently showed) was incapable of protecting us?

No doubt, there are on-line journalists out there who can and do do this kind of work. My hat is off to them. But how do we discern between legitimate on-line reporting and the muddled musings and rhetorical evidence of the latest conspiracy-theorist/blogger?

The answer is we can't always.

But because the work done by Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger came to us under the banner of a newspaper; a newspaper known to the country and its community; an organization answerable for what it presents, it is information that can be trusted, information that we feel more confident is the truth. Because if its wrong or inaccurate, we trust it will be corrected or those reporters won't have jobs anymore.

That trust, that name, is where the power of the press comes from and what makes chemical companies meet in sleek, glass-lined conference rooms and decide they have to deal with this revelation.

Hopefully, (gasp!) they may decide they need to clean up their act. Or maybe an enterprising U.S. attorney or regulatory agency will grow a set and decide they will clean it up for them; that perhaps slowly poisoning the population should be considered a criminal act, or at least frowned upon.

Note that to an extent, this is exactly what happened, as this follow-up story shows.

Increasingly, the Web provides opportunities for people to present information in an anonymous, non-accountable format. Without the reputation, the standing of an established (or even new) newspaper, the only thing that will happen in that conference room is laughter.

Will newspapers always arrive on your door-step rolled inside that paper bag, or screaming headlines from the honor box on the busiest corner? Probably not. No doubt they will exist in some form on-line, which is where I found the very reports I have highlighted here.

But while they may take on a new form or format, they must be allowed to retain their essential function in our society, as the first line of defense against corruption, waste and malfeasance in an attention-fractured society that does not have the time, energy or expertise to be a watch dog for its own self-interest.

This is true whether its the local paper digging into the latest property tax hike and where that money is going, or a major city daily exposing the hidden dangers of mysterious sounding chemicals.

This, as the title of this blog entry so flatly puts it, is why newspapers matter. They do what no else does, whether we've asked them to do it or not, for no other reason than because it needs to be done and nobody else will do it.

I'll climb down off my soap box now and we will return to environmental subjects at hand with our next post. Thanks for listening.

Matters, finally, well in hand

2009-01-27T09:25:00.018-05:00

Hello again.

Sorry for the long silence, I had a Jan. 20 date in Washington I couldn't break.

And while I was there, this new president dude was sworn in and he's already making all kinds of radical changes.

For example, it turns out President Obama didn't think much of his predecessor's policies as they relate to this global warming thing threatening the existence of life on Earth. Turns out, he's against it and intends to adopt a "pro-Earth" policy. Who knew?

So among the first things he intends to do once he'd finally mastered that pesky Oath of Office (both he and Chief Justice Roberts have pledged to take remedial Swearing In classes) was to issue executive orders increasing fuel efficiency standards on automobiles and to allow states to impose limits on carbon dioxide, something the Bush administration rejected.

As Reuters reported here, "if the EPA reverses the previous ruling, more than 12 U.S. states could proceed with plans to impose strict carbon dioxide limits. California wants to reduce the emissions by 30 percent by 2016 -- the most ambitious federal or state effort to address global warming."

Obama "is scheduled to deliver remarks on jobs, energy independence and climate change in the East Room of the White House on Monday," Reuters reported.

By March, he wants the Department of Transportation to set the new mileage guidelines, that will be in effect by 2011.

As The New York Times reported here, once states freed to enact standards do so, "automobile manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule. The auto companies have lobbied hard against the regulations and challenged them in court."

Seems to me, those auto makers have a choice, get with the program or give back the bailout money. It's not as if they haven't seen this coming for years. Hell, if they had spent half the money re-tooling their plants that they've spent on lawyers fighting the obvious need to re-tool their plants, their plants would be re-tooled by now.

(Strange, don't you think, how the words "tool" and "auto companies" keep coming up in the same sentence?)

Not satisfied there, Obama "will also order federal departments and agencies to find new ways to save energy and be more environmentally friendly. And he will highlight the elements in his $825 billion economic stimulus plan intended to create jobs around renewable energy," the New York Times reported.

Speaking of which, let's consider how well that might work. If only there were some kind of real-life example we could turn to....hmmmm.

If only there were some sort of report showing how green technology might affect growth...

We take you now good citizens to the pages of the Los Angeles Times where we find evidence of -- wait for it -- yes! a report on a report that shows how green technology might affect growth.

In two words or less -- "very well."

The report, by a non-profit research group called Next 10, found "Green-collar jobs are growing faster than statewide employment. Clean-tech investment in the state hit a record last year, despite steep stock-market declines. California leads the nation in patent registrations for green technology. Efficiency measures pioneered (in California) over the last three decades have created 1.5 million jobs and allowed California businesses to generate many more goods and services per unit of energy consumed than other states."

"Those green jobs encompass a variety of occupations, including research scientists, wind-energy technicians and solar panel installers. Such positions are growing fast, the report showed. Green employment was up 10% between 2005 and 2007. Statewide job growth was 1% over the same period," The LA Times reported.

California has already adopted the toughest energy efficiency standards in the country. "The result is that the state's energy productivity -- energy consumed compared with economic output -- is 68% higher than that of the rest of the country, according to the report."

"Venture capital investment in clean technology in California totaled $3.3 billion in 2008, more than double the amount invested in 2007. Between 2002 and 2007, 607 green-technology patents were registered in California, the study said. That's more than any other state," the LA Times reported.

Hm. And all without cutting taxes for rich people.

But really, who can believe some wacky non-profit with a weird name out on the left coast?

OK, would you believe Wal-Mart?

"When Wal-Mart first embraced green initiatives, its fortunes were sagging," The New York Times reported in this article.

"After blanketing the country with its giant, all-in-one stores, it began cannibalizing its own sales. Older stores looked tattered and tired, and Wal-Mart’s flirtation with higher-end merchandise, like skinny jeans with fur trim, alienated low-income shoppers who preferred unadorned basics. "

So CEO H. Lee Scott Jr. did what smart business people do, he stepped back, looked at the big picture, saw the future and then, by virtue of what the Times calls Wal-Mart's "Herculean size," it led.

"By virtue of its herculean size, Wal-Mart eventually dragged much of corporate America along with it, leading mighty suppliers like General Electric and Procter & Gamble to transform their own business practices.

"Today, the roughly 200 million customers who pass through Wal-Mart’s doors each year buy fluorescent light bulbs that use up to 75 percent less electricity than incandescent bulbs, concentrated laundry detergent that uses 50 percent less water and prescription drugs that contain 50 percent less packaging," the Times reported.

"By selling only concentrated liquid laundry detergent, an effort it began last year, Wal-Mart says, its customers will save more than 400 million gallons of water, 95 million pounds of plastic resin, 125 million pounds of cardboard and 520,000 gallons of diesel fuel over three years," the paper reported.

"Wal-Mart says it now saves itself $3.5 million a year just by recycling loose plastic and selling it to processors. After changing the design of its trucks and how efficiently it loads them, its fleet had a 25 percent improvement in fuel efficiency. Amory B. Lovins, a MacArthur fellow and chairman and chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit research organization, said Wal-Mart would save nearly $500 million a year in fuel costs by 2020. "

So, "as the saying goes, Wal-Mart has also done well by doing good. Along with the McDonald’s Corporation, it was one of only two companies in the Dow Jones industrial average whose share price rose last year.

"Profits climbed to $12.7 billion in the 2008 fiscal year, from $11.2 billion in the 2006 fiscal year, while sales jumped to $375 billion, from $312.4 billion, during the same period" and this as the recession was beginning to take hold.

Hmm, Go Green, Make Green.

You can use that if you want.

New Life for Old Electronics

2009-01-11T10:58:00.008-05:00

Your heart raced as you tore the paper off the package ... YES! that new iPod (or Blackberry, or computer, or MP3 player, or BIG SCREEN TV)! Santa came through big time.

Your hands trembling, you disconnect the old dinosaur (barely two years old) in your entertainment center, sweeping away the dust and accumulated DVDs and make room for your new baby...just in time for the SUPERBOWL!

Or how about this? The old Zenith won't get that new digital signal that starts next month, so rather than get the converter box, you decide it's time to get a new TV.

Or maybe you have heard such good things about Vista (OK, let's face it, that would never happen) that you've run out and purchased a new computer.

All of these scenarios have one question in common: What do you do with the old one?

Well, in a previous life, you would have put it at the curb, surprisingly still legal in Pennsylvania.

But what you may not know, or have chosen not to question, is that many electronics contain dangerous chemicals, heavy metals in particular.

Why are they potentially harmful? The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection informs us that electronic equipment contains metals like cadmium, lead and mercury.

Cadmium - The largest source of cadmium in municipal waste is rechargeable nickel-cadmium (NiCd) batteries.
Lead - Monitors and televisions contain a picture tube known as a cathode ray tube (CRT). The CRTs contain leaded glass, and are the largest source of lead in municipal waste.
Mercury - Some electronic equipment also contains recoverable quantities of mercury.

Electronic discards include computers, monitors, televisions, audio equipment, printers, and other electronic devices. Rapid advances in technology means that consumer electronics, particularly computers, are quickly rendered them obsolete. The average lifespan of a computer is about 2-3 years. (Here I must announced proudly that I still use a desktop that runs Windows '95. Honesty also requires that my son calls it "Old Bessie" and it is little more than a glorified typewriter at this point.)

Further, we all know that when it stops working right, the price of replacement parts or service often makes it more practical to simply buy a new one; which is all well and good, provided you can find a green way to get rid of the old one.

Well guess what, your friends here at The Thin Green Line are here to help.

Having finally regained consciousness after being bludgeoned insensate by an overdose of holiday consumerism, we sent our massive team of expert researchers into the field to answer these crucial questions.

(In other words, Evan spent a few minutes surfing Web. This really isn't that hard people!)

One answer is to be found from the very same DEP that warns us about the potential pollution from the old Victrola.

Their first suggestion, contained in a Dec. 30 release that landed in The Mercury in-box, is a pretty good one. If it works, find someone else you can give it to.

Free-cycle (more about this in a later blog) is one way to do it, although you might also call The Mercury's Sound-Off line (610-323-3009) and leave a message. Someone will surely want it.

The good news is there are a number of locations around the state where electronics can be dropped off for recycling. The bad news is there are none in the immediate area, with the exception of Jim Crater's Recycling Services Inc. in North Coventry which will take some electronics for re-sale.

You can go to the DEP Web site, -- http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/-- and search under "Electronics Collection Program," or call one of their hotlines, 800-346-4242, or 717-787-7382 to find out where, but why do that, when we've already done it for you?

Philadelphia County - Philadelphia now has two permanent drop off collections sites for electronics recycling. Hours are Monday - Saturday 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. The sites are located at:
Domino Lane and Umbria Street- Roxborough
State Road and Ashburner Street
Questions can be directed to Scott McGrath at 215-686-5504
Lehigh County residents can recycle unwanted electronic equipment at AERC Recycling Solutions at 1801 Union Blvd in Allentown on the 2nd and 4th Friday of each month from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Fee to recycle most items is $1 and televisions are $5. For a full list of prices or for more information please call 610-797-7608 or visit http://www.aercrecycling.com/
Lancaster County (computers only) - Residents of Lancaster County can recycle their computers for NO CHARGE. This includes associated items such as monitors, printer and keyboards.
Small businesses can recycle up to 25 computers. The first five will be recycled for NO CHARGE; after that there is a $5 fee for each monitor and a $5 fee for each CPU.
Computers will be accepted at the Household Hazardous Waste Facility, located at 1299 Harrisburg Pike. Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. 2nd & 4th Saturday of each month 8 a.m. until noon. 717-397-9968 http://www.lcswma.org/

If the item you're tossing is smaller, guess who else can help? Would you believe the Post Office?

In April, the Post Office launched a pilot program that "allows customers to recycle small electronics and inkjet cartridges by mailing them free of charge."

Called the "Mail Back Program," you just go to the post office and use free envelopes located there to mail back inkjet cartridges, PDAs, Blackberries, digital cameras, iPods and MP3 players – without having to pay for postage. Postage is paid for by Clover Technologies Group, a company that recycles, remanufactures and remarkets inkjet cartridges, laser cartridges and small electronics.

If the electronic item or cartridges cannot be refurbished and resold, its component parts are reused to refurbish other items, or the parts are broken down further and the materials are recycled, according to the Post Office. Clover Technologies Group has a “zero waste to landfill” policy: it does everything it can to avoid contributing any materials to the nation’s landfills.

The free, postage-paid Mail Back envelopes can be found on displays in Post Office lobbies. There is no limit to the number of envelopes customers may take.

According to an April release, "The pilot is set for 10 areas across the country, including Washington, D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles and San Diego, but could become a national program this fall if the pilot program proves successful. "

Our crack research team was unable to find any information about whether the program is available everywhere or not. Maybe someone will let us know.