Latest U.P.S. Fuel-Saving Strategies: Leg Muscles and Hydraulics – Green Inc. Blog – NYTimes.com.

I’m not a fan of either major private shipping company (and am mourning the loss of DHL as a domestic shipping company), but if I had to choose between them, I’d probably go for UPS, for the very simple reason that, unlike FedEx, they’ve never lost one of my packages.

And they also go for cool things like using bikes to make deliveries in residential neighborhoods, and ordering hybrid vehicles that will enter service in early 2009.  The story really made me stop and thing.  It says a lot about the laziness of Americans, that in our search for alternative energy sources we ignore the fact that human-power can take over for machine-power.  Now you’re talking about fuel measured in calories, not gallons.

If we started doing more things by hand instead of machines, think of the impact it could have, not just on the environment, but on our health.  Increased physical activity would help combat the obesity epidemic.  And lower rates of obesity could mean lower rates of diabetes among people who would otherwise be healthy.  (See what happens when I get snowed in, I take a story about bikes being used for package delivery and extrapolate until I link it to a way to reduce diabetes.)

In short, I applaud the measures UPS is taking, and would encourage the comapny (and FedEx) to spread such measures throughout their company.  It will save them money in fuel, take care of the environment, and will promote a healthier workforce.

Back from the dead.  Life is settling down again, so I’m trying to get back into posting at my blog.  While I was watching the History Channel today, something struck me as I watched the “Universe” series.

When designing a space station, scientists measured how much water you could realistically cut out of a person’s daily usage?  It’s well known that we in the West use far too much water for everything from bathing, to dishes, laundry, and so on.  Their finding?

That while on the space station, astronauts could use as little as 3 gallons of water a day and still not have any real problems in terms of cleanliness and social comfort.

Obviously astronauts don’t have to worry about the same things we do – laundry is handled differently, food is handled differently.  But if astronauts on a space station can use as little as 3 gallons of water a day, shouldn’t we here on earth be able to commit ourselves to using only, say, 10 gallons a day?  It would take a drastic change of habit, but it would be possible.  We don’t do laundry or dishes on a daily basis.  If we committed to things like sponge baths, and thought about the way we do things such as washing our hair, we should be able to cut back our water usage drastically.

Just something to think about.

Spread the Word — Green Jobs Now: National Day of Action to Build the New Economy

Posted using ShareThis

I really love the new Press This button.  it’s a lot easier to act on the stories I see with this now.  I’ve got four or five stories in my RSS reader that have never made it onto this site.  But this one will.  One of the things I love about the Reuters AlertNet is that they don’t sugarcoat anything.  They’re not afraid to really give you the facts.  If they scare you, then good.  These are emergencies.  They should be scary. With that in mind, here is a nice, succinct piece of work from them back on July 22 that really highlights the need to tackle climate change.

RISING TEMPERATURES, MORE EXTREME WEATHER

REUTERS/Handout

The planet’s temperature is rising, and it’s rising at an accelerated pace that most scientists say is down to manmade factors. As the climate changes, they predict it will lead to more dramatic weather and disasters – not just droughts, but storms, floods and spreading disease too.

• 250 million people could be displaced by climate-related disasters by 2050
• The world’s poor – the most vulnerable to climage change – need help adapting
• Climate change increases risk of conflict

Reuters AlertNet – Climate change.

A lot of what the AlertNet handout has to say isn’t really news to you if you make it a point to read everything you can about climate change, like I do.  None of these points are new.  That doesn’t make them any less serious.  Besides the major points highlighted in this excerpt, AlertNet also goes on to point out something else that is largely forgotten: as the climate changes, people will be displaced, causing diseases to be spread to entirely new areas.  This can happen without large-scale human migration.  The increasingly warm temperatures in Northern Europe have allowed ticks to flourish in areas previously unsuitable for them.  The result: a whole new population is being exposed to Lyme disease.

The “At a glance” page on climate change, which is linked to above, is just that, a glance at the problem.  Heading over to the “In detail” tab, Alternet has really created a comprehensive look at why we can’t afford not to try and clean up our act.  From natural disasters to the problems of megacities, you can find pretty much all of it.  And if there’s someone in your family who doesn’t quite understand why climate change is so serious, perhaps you can benefit from the “What’s the difference between climate and weather?” section included.

Overall, I really like that Reuters has put out a page with all of this in one spot.  It’s a helpful resource for anyone who wants to advocate for immediate action to halt climate change.  Hopefully I’ll start posting again with some frequency.  I’ve been writing quite a lot recently for my graduate school application, meaning I’ve been out of gas when it comes to blog entries and such.  But for now, have a read over at AlertNet and arm yourself with all the facts and figures that they’ve gathered into one place for us to use.

The We Campaign has been pushing their goal of 100% renewable energy in 10 years.  Their new commercial, which has been airing on NBC during Olympics coverage, is rather beautiful.  But the campaign leadership can only take things so far.  Individuals also need to do their part to get renewable energy into conversations on Capitol Hill.

Now is a perfect time for this.  All of our senators and representatives are home from now until Labor Day, meaning they’ll actually be spending time at their district offices.  If you feel that your representatives aren’t taking climate change and renewable energy seriously, or if you want to congratulate them on their support and tell them to keep it up, think about paying them a visit in the next couple weeks.

Remember, your reps. are ultimately answering to you.  You’re the ones that get them into office – and the ones that can pull them out.  They are supposed to be in Washington acting in your best interests.  But unless they hear from you, how are the supposed to know what you need and want?  Interested in talking to your reps?  Be sure to check out the We Campaign for a nice guide to how to structure your visit to be productive.  Many groups can give you tips on how to have a professional, cordial visit with your rep.  Be sure to check out other grassroots organizations like Amnesty International for more advice if you’re nervous.

And remember, you don’t have to walk in there alone.  There is strength in numbers, and representatives can meet with individuals or groups of their constituents.  Just remember to make a plan before you go, be professional, and be polite.

Well, as I predicted when I decided to forgo posting for sleep last night, I woke up to a new situation in the Russia/Georgia crisis, but things still aren’t on solid ground.  If you haven’t really heard about the situation, the BBC has a short summary, which they always do well.  Even shorter story: Two regions of Georgia want to break away.  The Georgian President pledged to get them back.  And sent in the army.  Russia then sent in their army.  And sent them past those regions into sovereign Georgian territory.  Eventually Sarkozy managed to get the two to sign on to a ceasefire after five days of intense fighting.

Here’s the fun part.  Three oil pipelines run through Georgia.  Need I elaborate on why this would be cause for concern?  One pipeline has been closed for repairs, another was closed in response to the fighting.  So only one is currently up and running.  So far, BP’s actions (they have a 30% stake in the pipeline) haven’t translated into higher prices at the pump, mainly because they time perfectly with a drastic reduction in American demand for oil.  We got lucky.

When I was talking about all the reasons to get off oil, including avoiding “pipeline politics“, I didn’t expect to see it all play out so soon in such a drastic way.  When I wrote, I was thinking about the Middle East, and the instability wrought by the American occupation of Iraq.  However, the fact that such an incident DID unfold in an unexpected area underscores the point even more.  Oil causes more problems than it solves.  Just to break it down in this particular instance:

1. Oil is one of the sources of Russia’s sudden resurgence of wealth, which has been quickly followed by a resurgence of their aggressive Eastern European politics
2. Georgia’s gamble has backfired, and now the instability generated in their country could cause investors to shy away.
3. If the closure of the second pipeline had not coincided with a decreased US demand, energy prices would have risen again.

So, in closing, I see the conflict in Georgia as a cautionary tale of what can happen when instability visits oil-producing nations, or other nations vital to the oil supply chain.  We got lucky that it didn’t play out into a disaster this time.  But why should we wait for such a crisis to play out.  If we take proactive steps to reduce our dependence on oil, then we will neutralize the threat that such regional conflicts pose to our global society.

Well, I can’t sit down and write at this very second, but I’ve been following the events in Georgia over the course of the week.  It’s been growing more serious by the day, and depending on how events play out, a major oil pipeline could be at risk.  How many more near catastrophes do we need before we finally get off oil?

Well, I have a birthday dinner and script read-through to attend tonight.  But when I get back, I’ll be fleshing out these ideas more.  Stick around.

As I was fixing up my link list into identifiable categories, I realized that none of them include fellow bloggers who have goals similar to mine.  So, if you’re green in any way, whether you’re tracking the issues at the top, talking about sustainable agriculture or business, or are focusing on the individual level, if you’d like to exchange links with Global Green, just leave a comment and I’ll get on it.  It will be a way to increase both of our readerships.  Thanks in advance!

That’s the gist of an article this week in Time Magazine.  Time has done what many of us have already done: taken a good look at off-shore drilling and deciding that it’s not a smart thing to do right now.  Time isn’t afraid to put the statistics out there: that off-shore drilling would only meet 1% of our demand in about two or three decades.

The secret to solving any major problem, be it global warming or the mortgage and credit crisis, is to marry top-down and bottom-up reforms.  I’m really not afraid to say it:  Americans have become disgustingly lazy, and politicians won’t stand up and tell us to get off our asses.  As MichaeL Grunwald points out in his article, just keeping things in working order and breaking some of our bad habits will already help drastically reduce our need for oil to power our cars:

Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

Problems won’t be solved by listening to the radical right OR the radical left.  Both of them are pushing an agenda that’s unrealistic.  Offshore drilling won’t solve the pending energy crisis.  But Americans also won’t go for giving up all the creature comforts we’ve come to expect in life.  The way to proceed is somewhere in the middle.  The government should do its job to limit pollution and promote green energy alternatives.  It can do it, and it can do it well.  I believe that we can get all our domestic energy from renewable sources in ten years, as Vice President Al Gore has challenged us to do.

But on the other side of the issue, the American people need to stop acting like they have no responsibility in this mess.  Let’s admit it: on a whole, our lifestyle and habits are incredibly wasteful.  So let’s start doing little things to make it less wasteful, but still the life we’re all used to.  How?  Well, for starters, make sure your tires are properly inflated (the sticker on your car door will tell you what numbers to aim for.)

If you do want to make your lifestyle a little more eco-friendly but aren’t ready to move into an Earthship, I recommend picking up a copy of The Green Book.  I happened upon this book while looking through a Barnes & Noble sale table and picked it up.  It’s an amazing book that focuses on those little things you can do to reduce your waste.  From children’s toys to carbon offsets, it really puts a ton of options on the table for you to choose.  Not all the tips will fit you.  I live about 35 miles from work.  Not much I can do right now to reduce my commute time.  My lease just renewed for another year.  So I keep my tire pressure up and try to drive as close to the speed limit as my lead foot lets me (I’m horrible at maintaining a constant speed.)  The result: my old 1995 Escort is still gets the 25 mpg that it did when it was new.  I’d be happier with 50, but a Toyota Prius is not within my field of financial possibilities for the next several years.

I think that Grunwald sums it up best:

 The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis — the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It’s a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.

Also, for anyone who does what to know what Barack Obama’s real energy plan his, make sure you download the PDF from his site that explains it all.  And, remember that Obama has said he supports Gore’s energy challenge.

Well, I was never really a believer in the Chinese’s ability to pull off a “green” Olympics in Beijing this summer.  I have plenty else to complain about with China, but we’ll leave it at this for the moment.  From the time that China was granted the 2008 games, the world was watching to ensure that they did clean up their act.  And they didn’t.  Now, even though they conquered the algae bloom, they appear to be unable to deliver the quality of air that the Olympic athletes have been counting on.  With only three days until the Games open, the haze that has blanketed Beijing for so many years does not appear to be going anywhere.

This really doesn’t surprise me.  China’s main strategy in preventing the haze focused mainly on taking cars of the road and limiting the hours local factories can work.  But Beijing’s air problem is not local.  The particulate matter that has been one of the most worrisome sources of pollution for athletes still measures high.  The BBC reports that on Monday, levels of particulate matter in Beijing’s air were six times above their recommended level.  In fact, the BBC has a very thorough look at the levels of particulate matter in Beijing’s air over the past month.  Yesterday, the amount spiked rapidly compared to Sunday, when the skies looked like they were clearing.

I’ll probably give China’s supposed solutions to their air pollution for the Games a close look later.  For now, just registering my formal prediction that the quality of air in Beijing will continue to haunt China during and after the Games.  After all, Beijing was considered to be the twelfth most polluted city in the world, according to a 2004 World Bank study.  And China has only become more of a polluter in the four years since.