EcoSalon

There’s a cello sitting in my office, sadly neglected and getting dusty. I bought it nearly two years ago because I’ve always wanted to learn how to play, but because my fingers are nimble on a computer keyboard, they fumble the movements needed to make anything but an awful abrasive sound with strings and a bow. 

I soon gave up, but perhaps I shouldn’t have – as practice really does make perfect (or something close to it), according to a recent study.

It isn’t necessarily natural-born talent, luck or any of those seemingly mystical qualities that make certain people wildly successful where others aren’t. It’s “sustained, intense, and deliberate practice in a particular area of expertise, in order to improve performance and cognitive thinking levels,” says study author Dr. Robert A. Baron.

Even experience doesn’t count as much as dogged, dedicated, repetitive practice.

“Across many different activities, most individuals show relatively rapid increments in performance up to levels they and others view as acceptable. This is then followed by a plateau and no further gains,” notes the study, currently published in the Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (PDF).

In other words, if you want to be really good at something, raise the bar. The kind of deliberate practice that gets results is carefully focused; you’ve got to be fully absorbed in it, constantly challenging yourself and demanding accountability. Set specific goals, raise those goals as you go, reflect on what you’ve learned and evaluate the results.

Oh yeah – and don’t worry if it’s not all fun. In fact, scholars in the field of expert performance describe the kind of practice that yields extraordinary results “the opposite of fun”. No pain, no gain? It’s a cliché, but it’s true. I’ll have to remember this myself the next time my back hurts from sitting in the correct position with my instrument and my fingers are blistered from the strings.

So, in sum: don’t let a lack of experience or natural talent get you down, dedicate yourself to your goal every day and never accept “good enough”. This attitude could bring you success in practically any kind of new venture – whether you’re starting a business, learning a craft or getting in shape.

Image by: Firepile

document.getElementById("post-36097-blankimage").onload();

Lust for Apple’s iPad reached a fevered pitch the second the company allowed pre-orders online (March 12th). We anticipate that the iPad will remain a trending topic on every corner of the internet, as sales begin at Best Buy and Apple stores April 3rd.

Greenpeace has been using iPad buzz to get people thinking about a need for greener information technology.

Are they really trying to take the wind out of Apple’s iPad sails, nee sales? Or is it reasonable to ask Apple fan-girls and -boys to think hard before they buy another wireless gewgaw, with another battery and batch of peripherals and accessories? Or for that matter, to ask us all how many times a day we really need to check our Facebook and Twitter feeds.

A March 30th Greenpeace statement cited research that predicts a triple increase in electricity consumption by data centers and telecommunication networks in the next decade. It called on computing giants, especially Apple, Microsoft, IBM and Google, to “get [their] carbon footprint under control.”

While Greenpeace views the IT industry with a skeptical eye, cloud computing insiders like Sherrie Wu, vice president of product development at AirSet in Berkeley, California thinks the trend of cloud computing – doing everything online, including storing files, accessing and using applications, versus downloading them and working from a hard drive – is already doing more good than harm, environmentally.

Wu explained, “Cloud computing like we offer at AirSet lets office teams collaborate on documents online in an integrated environment. Team members or even family members’ access to information, with cloud computing no longer relies on printed or email copies. Teams can keep their schedules, contacts, files, and all the other digital data that are important in one secure place, again instead of printing or emailing.”

Reduced paper consumption and fewer logins to get to the information you need sounds great. But with all of the electricity consumption, can cloud computing, including the iPad, have a silver-green lining?

Get informed and weigh in below, or Tweet your thoughts our way @ecosalon

Basic Reading:

Official iPad Product Specs

“Apple won’t say how many iPads it has sold in advance of their debut Saturday, and it’s hard to predict how many enthusiasts will camp overnight and swamp Apple stores when the doors open Saturday at 9 a.m., as they did for last summer’s launch of the most recent version of the iPhone…” – An Associated Press story by Jessica Mintz anticipating a successful iPad launch.

“The iPad…relies on cloud computing – a system where information and core processes are accessed through a network, rather than on a local server. The iPad is only one instance of this type of operation. Google is another, and the practice is increasingly common….” – A Guardian UK story by Vincent Bevins discussing the environmental benefits and potential drawbacks of cloud computing.

“Apple has indicated that the iPad is highly recyclable and free of harmful chemicals. The likely long-term environmental impact of the iPad is nonetheless ambiguous at best… it seems [like] another device that adds to our modern electronic clutter and feeds into the cannibalistic trend of shrinking product lifecycles.” – Change.org writer Giovannia Mejia discusses electronics makers’ use of “conflict” minerals, and compares the IT industry to the diamond industry.

Further Resources:

IPad Accessories Chart on Testfreaks.com, a design blog.

A feature story about Seton Hill University’s Plan to Issue Freshman iPads and MacBooks.

The iPad reviewed from a regular consumer’s and the techie’s point-of-view, by New York Times’ David Pogue.

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and business highlights by columnist Lora Kolodny.

Image by: curiouslee

document.getElementById("post-36176-blankimage").onload();

Perhaps the luck of the Irish will help make green dreams come true when it comes to the country’s goal to shift away from fossil fuels. Situated at the end of the supply chain and currently 90 percent dependent on imported oil, Ireland hopes to get 40 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 – far exceeding the EU’s target of 16 percent.

But luck might not be necessary in a nation driven by an urgent need for employment. Ireland sees its financial difficulties and depressed economy not as a hurdle to going green, but a major motivator. Switching to wind power and other renewables would not only provide thousands of jobs, but stabilize dramatic swings in oil and gas prices. Additionally, Ireland’s prospects are looking far sunnier than its trademark misty gray skies.

“We have doubled our renewable energy. We can double it and double it again,” says Eamon Ryan, Ireland’s minister for communications, energy and natural resources. “It is the perfect answer to the recessionary blues.”

Of course, it’s not as simple as throwing up some wind turbines and calling it a day. Just as it is here in America, one of the biggest obstacles is an aging electrical grid – but a grid interconnector directly from Ireland to Britain is currently being built, and with an energy minister who’s devoted to renewables, more improvements are sure to come.

What’s the biggest thing this island nation has going for it? Shoreline, and lots of it. Ireland has enough land and ocean space to provide its own wind power and even have enough to export to other countries. Five offshore wind farm projects are in the pipeline and marine energy is a possibility in the future.

Ireland is looking beyond the estimated $1.33 billion price tag, seeing it as an investment in the future – for both its people and the environment. Perhaps we should sit back and take some notes.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

document.getElementById("post-35890-blankimage").onload();

Have you ever bought a product on impulse because of some vague claim like “green,” “natural” or “earth-friendly,” brought it home and found it’s not green at all? Not all companies are trying to deceive us, but with the lack of a unified standard for green labeling, it’s all too easy for consumers to be confused.

Of course, some companies like it that way, because it means they can get a piece of the green market without putting forth any real effort. That’s why, according to a Brandweek editorial by Andrew Benett and Greg Welch, businesses that want to be trusted by consumers need to think beyond green.

“In sum, green can mean virtually anything,” write Benett and Welch. “And that suggests it will eventually mean absolutely nothing. What today’s more mindful, savvier and more demanding consumers are seeking are brand partners that have evolved beyond green to something else: clear.”

It’s all about transparency – something the business world could use a lot more of. The “clear brands of tomorrow” won’t have mission statements packed with ambiguous language about improving people’s lives, they’ll outline specific actions and goals and invite consumers to track their progress.

But that’s just the beginning of “going clear”, say Benett and Welch. “Consumers are no longer willing to let businesses exist simply for the purpose of making money; they want them to contribute to the greater good.”

Open lines of communication between company leaders and the public are vital, but most of all, what businesses will need to do is prove that they care by raising the bar. For example, XYZ Beauty Co. can’t cut parabens from its products and be content with that lone action – they’ll need to continuously strive for the next improvement and find ways that they can take sustainability even further.

Perhaps we’re a long way away from green business, let alone clear business, being the norm, but it’s important to aim for a world where companies are truly held accountable for their social and environmental impact.

Image: Neubie/Flickr

document.getElementById("post-35607-blankimage").onload();

Are Americans optimistic about the environment, ignorant or just plain lazy? Are they fatigued from all the “green” messaging and cause marketing out there? Or are they just complacent? A recent Gallup poll has shown that “over time, Americans’ concerns about environmental problems have generally declined.”

That’s hard to believe when there’s more environmental damage caused by Americans and more news about this available to us than ever before.

Just this week, ships are avoiding their normal cargo routes so that they can keep burning dirty fuel and skirt new air pollution laws around California.

And across the country, residents in the watershed areas of Skaneateles and Otisco lakes in New York are fighting a bill that would permit “hydrofracking” – a natural gas mining method that’s destructive to ecosystems and freshwater – on their private lands.

These examples are both driven by economic concerns. The shippers don’t want to pay fines or spend money on improved rigs. New York’s cash-starved state government is considering a bill that will bring taxpayer dollars to the state, with mining jobs and corporate real estate deals to replace low profit farms that are on some of that private property now.

Making matters worse, state budgets for environmental programs have been slashed, so even government agencies are holding out a tin cup or soliciting donations to support their good green work. In Atlanta, the House just passed a bill that would allow their own Department of Natural Resources to conduct fundraising through a non-profit to make up for a smaller slice of the taxpayer money pie.

At least defense budgets are also feeling the pinch.

If a 20-year low in levels of environmental concern wasn’t totally caused by money problems, Gallup suggested optimism may be to blame; Americans believe the environment is improving.

Basic Reading:

“Global warming concerns have ebbed and flowed, dipping to the lowest point since 1997. They’ve fallen precipitously since 2007, from 41% who worry ‘a great deal’ to 28%. Of eight [key environmental] issues, Americans now worry the least about global warming and the most about drinking-water pollution, which has often been a top concern.” – via USA Today

“Thanks in large part to partisan bickering and scandals such as Snowpocalypse and ClimateGate, confusion over global warming has reached a fevered pitch. At the same time, the economic slump is swallowing the public’s attention. What we may be witnessing is an endemic shift in prioritization, which raises the question: What, if anything, can instill a renewed sense of purpose?” – Mother Jones

“Climate hasn’t yet become as partisan an issue as, say, health care and taxes. But it’s getting there.” – How Republicans Learned to Reject Climate Change via NPR

Further Resources:

A debate over cause marketing fatigue – how many messages will consumers care about? – AdAge

“‘Do not wait for extraordinary circumstances to do good action; try to use ordinary situations.’ Jean Paul Richter. It seems that we humans are caught in the crushing curl of our own giant wave of trash. A long, sad and glorious tradition of using and dumping that spans the entirety of our time on earth…” – SuperEco.com

Ohio air quality officials complain the EPA is “trying to make us do too much too quickly,” on cutting smog – Cleveland.com

Are American Students Lazy? – InsideHigherEd.com

According to an EPA report, our air is getting cleaner relative to population growth and gross domestic product increases.

Image: rolands.lakis

document.getElementById("post-35661-blankimage").onload();

You’ve got a closet full of vintage frocks from the thrift store, a house full of energy-efficient appliances, organic sheets on your bed and a Prius in your driveway. It’s not exactly “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous,” but these choices aren’t about status – or are they? A new study on the evolutionary psychology of status and environmentalism finds that many people go green for appearances, not real altruism.

After all, the image-conscious needn’t tote teacup Chihuahuas in Chanel purses and drive gas-guzzling sports cars to be like celebrities when hip stars like Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz are cruising around in hybrids and carrying reusable bags.

In the recently published paper, “Going Green to Be Seen: Status, Reputation, and Conspicuous Conservation,” (PDF) University of Minnesota professor Vladas Griskevicius asserts that people will give up luxury in favor of sustainability – but only when other people are watching.

“Many green purchases are rooted in the evolutionary idea of competitive altruism, the notion that people compete for status by trying to appear more altruistic,” notes Griskevicius.

Griskevicius and his colleagues performed three experiments in which participants were asked to choose between luxury items and greener options when shopping for a car, household cleaner and a dishwasher.

Some of the subjects were told to imagine that they were about to start a new high-powered job where they’d need to impress their boss and co-workers in order to move up. These people – with status in mind – chose the green products.

Of course, this study doesn’t mean we’re all strutting around like organic peacocks hoping our neighbors will notice our sustainable superiority. But thinking about this from another point of view, what is wrong with environmentally friendly choices being the cool thing to do? In a perfect world, motivation would extend beyond the surface for everyone. Some of our fellow environmentalists will disagree, but whatever compels status-conscious consumers to make green choices is worth applauding – for a perfect world it’s not.

Image: Notions Capital

document.getElementById("post-35351-blankimage").onload();

Best-selling author Thomas Kostigen shares simple, surprising tips to reduce your “water footprint.” (Hint: Turn out the lights… and don’t buy that extra pair of jeans!)

By KC Baker of Tonic.com as published March 2010.

It’s time for all of us to go on a water diet.

Long leisurely showers, running the water while brushing your teeth, even buying that extra pair of jeans you don’t really need — all of those seemingly small actions are dramatically decreasing the world’s water supply, says New York Times bestselling author Thomas Kostigen. And he should know: The author just released The Green Blue Book: The Simple Water-Savings Guide To Everything in Your Life, the most comprehensive book ever written about the world’s most precious resource.

“Right now, five million people die every year because of a lack of fresh water,” says Kostigen, whose latest book arrived just in time for today’s World Water Day, a United Nations’ initiative aimed at bringing attention to the planet’s escalating water crisis. “It’s not that we don’t have enough water. It’s that we’re not managing it correctly.”

Now, more than ever, we need to look at how much water we use — and waste — and do something about it before it’s too late, he says. “There’s a big crisis hitting us right here, right now, and that’s water,” says Kostigen — who also wrote the bestselling books You Are Here and The Green Book.

Think the water crisis is a third world problem? Think again.

The water crisis has already hit the United States in serious ways, Kostigen says: “Thirty six states in the next five years will experience some kind of drought. Texas, which is the second biggest agricultural state in the union, is now the driest region in the nation. The aquifer in the Great Plains is drying up, which means that farmers don’t have enough water for their crops. Cattle ranchers don’t have enough water for their cattle. There are wildfires in California, where we are rationing water. Arizona has run out of its water and has been forced to import it. A few years ago, Georgia almost ran out of water. A lot of it has to do with the shift in climate and our profligate use of water.”

Through his travels throughout the world and to the planet’s most environmentally vulnerable spots, he found that people in the US use more water than anywhere else. “In third world countries, where resources are scarce, they use five gallons of water a day for drinking, bathing, eating and for health reasons,” he says. “We use five gallons of water with each flush of the toilet.”

People in the US need about 13 gallons of water a day to drink, bathe and other things. “But we use almost 150 gallons a day per person,” he says. “There is a major disconnect between what we need and what we use. When you put that into that perspective, you start to think about what we can do to conserve water in our water diet.”

One way we waste water without even thinking about it is by making more coffee than we drink, he says. “Think about the water you leave in the bottom of the pot each day. That one cup of cold coffee adds up to two gallons of water per person for 1.1 billion people who don’t have access to fresh water around the world. If everyone would make the amount of coffee they need, that would save a huge amount of water.”

Big savings are also possible simply by ordering a salad once a week rather than a burger when you eat out. Beef uses 1,581 gallons of water per pound to process — more than any other kind of meat, Kostigen says. “One way to cut down on our water usage is by swapping things out. It doesn’t have to be an all-sum game. Swap out a hamburger for a veggie burger just once and save about 600 gallons of water. Ordering a salad saves about 750 gallons of water,” he explains.

Besides the water we use each day for cooking, bathing and washing dishes and clothes, we also need to consider the concept of “virtual water” — the amount of H2O it takes to make and grow food, clothes, household items and other things you own.

“It takes nearly 3,000 gallons of water to make a new pair of jeans,” he says. “With 450 million pairs sold annually in the United States, that comes to nearly 1.4 trillion gallons of water, which is equal to half of California’s entire yearly urban water demand.”

In America, we put “strange things in strange places,” he adds. “Like palm trees in Los Angeles and Las Vegas. We put species where they don’t belong in excess amounts, which leads to overwatering.”

Overwatering with water we simply don’t have to waste.

The solution? “We need to make smarter choices,” he says.

To reduce your own water footprint, try the following:

Turn off the lights: “We use 50 percent of our water supply in the United States to create energy,” he says. “Turning off the lights saves even more water than turning off the tap in your home.”

Buy local : “Buy apples and vegetables from local farmers markets,” he says. “This saves money in the transport of food from other areas.”

Put your water into your own bottles: “This is a big one,” he says. “It takes three liters of water to make the bottle for one liter of water.”

Water lawns and gardens less: “Seventy percent of all residential water goes for our lawns,” he says. “We over water our plants, lawns and gardens by about 50 percent on average.”

Buy what you need — especially when it comes to food: “Agriculture is the number one consumer of freshwater in the world, accounting for about 70 percent of its use,” he says. We waste 40 percent of the food we produce in the US and along with it, 25 percent of the total U.S. water supply it took to grow it.”

Go to the car wash: “Car washes use water more efficiently than doing it yourself with a hose,” he says. “And many car washes use recycled water.”

Turn off the tap when you are brushing your teeth.

None of it’s particularly difficult. Connecticut resident Michelle Kingsbury tells Tonic she has been practicing water conservation for years now — in small ways. “When I make coffee, I measure out the amount of water I need in a mug and put that amount of water in the coffee maker,” says the mother of three. “I leave buckets outside in the yard to collect water when it rains and water my garden with that. These are easy things to do that end up saving a lot of water.”

Kostigen hopes that his latest book, which is easy to read and even funny in parts, along with World Water Day and the April 18 Live Earth Run For Water event will help make people realize just how important it is to save water. “We need to decrease our water footprint,” he says. “Not just the water we see, but the water we don’t see — and make better choices, which will save millions of gallons of water.”

The beautiful thing about that? “It’s easy to do,” he says, “and everyone can do it.”

Click here to read more about World Water Day 2010.

Photo courtesy of Tom Kostigen, by malla_mi via Flickr, and by Hypergurl – Tanya Ann via Flickr.

document.getElementById("post-35329-blankimage").onload();

St. Patricks’ Day this week turned cities green literally – from landmarks to libations. But how green have major metro areas around the U.S. been throughout the year? The American Cities Business Journal group has released a new study on the matter.

Their inaugural Green Cities Index examined 43 U.S. cities, and ranked them based on 20 criteria encompassing residents’ environmental behavior, cities’ use or abuse of land and water, and presence of a variety of environment related projects and industries. The Green Cities Index 2010 survey results have been hot in the blogosphere ever since, with bloggers and residents bragging or bummed about their scores.

Portland topped the Green Cities Index 2010, with San Francisco in a close second place, Honolulu at third followed by Austin and Boston. The new study’s rankings fell in line with related studies by the Natural Resources Defense Council, and by Popular Science. But not exactly.

Surprising Strengths

Green Cities Index 2010 gave areas lacking environmental credibility overall some surprising points. Houston, one of the most traffic-choked cities in the U.S., held the top spot for Energy Star rated facilities, saving it from a much lower score.

Meanwhile, Albany ranked in the top ten on this list, though traditional manufacturing plants have caused severe pollution there for years. The city’s high score was influenced by Albany’s top score for “green jobs.”

At least the presence of more green jobs per capita in the area indicates the promise of a sea change.

It ain’t easy being green…

How important are green aspects of a city to the quality of life there? We think entirely important. That’s why we’re surprised that Green Cities Index 2010 chart topper Portland did not rank so highly in a separate happiness survey, the Gallup Healthways Well-Being Index which was released last month. The happiness study examined 162 cities, and Portland came in at 59. (That compares indirectly to 16th place on a 43-city list like Green Cities.)

Greensboro, North Carolina which came in dead last on the Green Cities Index, with the worst ranking for sprawl and its result, carbon emissions per capita, ranked 97th on the well-being index, which would put it at about 25th on a list of 43.

While there’s no apples-to-apples comparison between the studies, it’s worth asking: why aren’t the greenest cities always the happiest? Where does your city rank, and how happy are you?

Basic reading:

“A few hundred miles up the Ohio River from Cincinnati, Pittsburgh sits as a shining example of sustainability. After decades of working to clean its smoky skies and polluted waterways, the Steel City also has become a model for green building and sustainable design…” – A news feature discussing the reasons why Cincinnati Business Journal decided to launch its Green Cities Index

“Nine of the 10 cities that fare best on ‘life evaluation,’ assessments of life now and expectations in five years, boast a major university, a big military installation or a state Capitol – institutions that presumably provide some insulation from recession.” – A news feature breaking down a Gallup study of how happy people are in American cities, via USA Today

“If you want to be good to the environment, stay away from it…” From a 2009 study on Suburban vs. City living by Edward L. Glaeser

“No Northwest city is yet close to the destination of sustainability: carbon neutrality; widely shared prosperity; stable populations in strong communities; educational and economic opportunity for all; hyper-efficient use of natural resources; zero-pollution industries; and low-stuff, high-satisfaction lives.” – a different assessment of green cities from the Vancouver, B.C. news site, The Tyee

Further Resources:

News from OregonLive.com about the lack of trees in an otherwise green city, Portland: “Green Portland Isn’t Green Enough”

An Environmental Protection Agency air quality report

For contrast, a news report on air quality in Islamabad

A Greenbang.com story about London’s aim to imitate Copenhagen, Europe’s greenest city

A blog post calling for public transit support in Nashville, and referencing its low ranking on Green Cities Index 2010

Image Credit: Keith Skelton

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and trends by EcoSalon writer and columnist Lora Kolodny.

document.getElementById("post-35128-blankimage").onload();

Is this a meat destined for the dinner tables of the 21st Century? Eaten in parts of Italy, Korea, Madagascar, Spain and China, it’s allegedly tastier than chicken, rabbit or pigeon…and it’s available worldwide in vast quantities. The name of this super-food? Brace yourself. It’s cat.

Midway through an episode of Italian cooking show La Prova del Cuoco, celebrity chef Beppe Bigazzi began waxing lyrical about the joys of a nice big bowl of casseroled cat. Describing the dish as “quite tender” he gave tips on preparation (soak in springwater for 3 days) before predicting “now we’ll get letters from nature lovers”.

No kidding. One white-hot telephone switchboard later, Bigazzi has been indefinitely suspended from the show (despite claiming it was all a prank), and Italy’s Deputy Health Minister is calling for a criminal investigation. Is Bigazzi suitably contrite? Well, not so much. “In the 1930s and 1940s, when I was a boy, people certainly did eat cat in the countryside around Arezzo,” he explains.

Fighting a churning stomach and a rising sense of outrage? Me, too – but there’s an interesting, and valid, question here. In the blossoming world culture of the 21st Century, where will food taboos fit in?

Take cats. Our horror at popping puss in a pot is because for us, cats have crossed that invisible cultural line between wild animals and domestic companions. They’re part of our lives in a way that lifts them out of our food chain. Consequently, while it’s often technically legal to consume cat meat, doing so breaches a number of animal cruelty laws and lands the chef in prison (the challenge facing Bigazzi right now). And that’s mild compared to the public reaction to stories like this.

It’s clearly, obviously wrong to eat cats, right? But a Hindu would say exactly the same thing about beef, as they regard the cow as a sacred animal. The Somali (recently famous for their piracy) don’t eat fish. Even staunchly meat-eating England, Australia and the U.S. have a mild taboo against eating offal. How about escargot, anyone? Wherever you look, we flinch at different things.

Across the world as a whole, “wrong” is anything but obvious. And this allows shock-jock TV chefs to go in search of dishes that will thrill their audiences with ratings-winning revulsion.

Sometimes food taboos make perfect sense, and sometimes they’re no-nos laced with hypocrisy. We’re inconsistent. That’s often the way we roll. But when the world needs feeding, should we be trying to put a lid on our indignation – or is it about time we turned up the heat on the culinary wrongdoers?

Image: avlxyz

document.getElementById("post-34727-blankimage").onload();

Google Maps released a feature that gives turn-by-turn biking directions in 150 American cities this week, as it has previously for driving, public transportation and walking routes.

According to the company’s own blog, bike directions were the most requested feature by Google Maps users. Pro-bicyclist, and environmentalist groups like Austin’s GoogleMapsBikeThere.org had created petitions and lobbied Google to develop this tool as early as 2007. Their petition scored more than 51,000 signatures.

Others, like RideTheCity in New York, worked to develop their own bike route mapping tools online, with specific, insider knowledge of each metro area.

The new Google feature delivers information about bike trails that have no motor vehicles, and the streets and routes recommended for cyclists, avoiding motor vehicle traffic, and steep hills. So far, the green and bike loving blogosphere has reacted with mixed reviews, deeming Google Maps for Bikes a good start, but not quite there yet.

We hope that Google’s Bike Maps feature will encourage car commuters to go green and get fit. Biking where you might have driven before can prevent tons of carbon emissions each year, while burning hundreds of calories an hour.

Basic Reading:

“Motor vehicle emissions represent 31 percent of total carbon dioxide, 81 percent of carbon monoxide, and 49 percent of nitrogen oxides released in the U.S. A short, four-mile round trip by bicycle keeps about 15 pounds of pollutants out of the air we breathe.” – Top environmental reasons to bike not drive from BikeLeague.org

“Google worked with the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, which advocates for the creation of biking and walking paths throughout the United States, to gather trail-map data. ‘The demand for trail maps and information has never been higher, especially as more people recognize biking as a viable, inexpensive and healthy alternative to driving,’ Rails-to-Trails President Keith Laughlin said in a statement.” – A news item ‘Google Maps Your Way to the Bicycle Path,’ via Silicon Valley Mercury News

“Avid bicyclists, who have long demanded they be treated as equals on the city’s streets, suddenly felt the pain of every driver who has taken a wrong turn after getting glitchy Google Maps directions… Some [cyclists] said the site wanted them to backpedal away from official city bike routes, often adding 10 or 15 minutes to their usual commutes. One regular rider said Google was trying to kill her – directing her to get on Interstate 5.” – A mixed review for Google’s Bike Maps feature by Portland, Oregon cyclists via Oregon Live

“My guess: Google’s bike maps feature will be mostly neglected until they are vastly improved. One suggestion, Google needs a better system to accept crowdsourced input. If cyclists get behind the project, however, Google’s bike maps could become really helpful.” A tough review of Google Bike Maps, by David Coursey for PC World

Further Resources:

“I burn about 66 carolies per mile on my bicycle. My car emits .932 pounds of CO2 per mile…” – A by-the-numbers post at CarFree blog

Wired’s Autopia blog seeks readers’ opinion for a “crowdsourced” review of Google Maps new bike feature

A post by Jason St. Amand about the most affordable and best bikes via WalletPop

The website of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which tracks safety issues around driving, mostly, with some cycling and walking studies too

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and business highlights by columnist Lora Kolodny.

Image: Pixel Addict

document.getElementById("post-34775-blankimage").onload();

It seems that there are two kinds of milk cartons: the ones that hit you over the head with scenes of happy cows living Disney lives in beautiful pastures, and the ones that give you no information at all other than the word ‘MILK’ stamped across the front. Rarely does either provide any real indication of where the milk actually comes from – yet often, both might be from the very same farm or even the very same cows!

Every carton of milk, yogurt, ice cream and other dairy products has a code printed on it that gives us the city, state and dairy where the product was produced, but that code has never meant much to most people since looking it up was an arduous process.

Note the word was. A site called Where is My Milk From? now makes it easy to look up the origins of your dairy products. Just type in the code, found near the top of the carton or on the lid, and the site pulls up the exact plant where it was produced on a Google map, along with a list of other dairy products packaged there. Ah, technology.

Another handy function lets you see a list of dairies and processing plants in your state or even your town. It’s interesting to see how milk that’s produced locally isn’t necessarily bottled locally, and despite having a packaging plant right down the street, you’re often getting products packaged halfway across the country.

Isn’t it funny how the modern world has produced such a confusing web of food distribution, and yet technology is what’s helping us untangle it? Hurray, internets!

Photo: tauress/Flickr

document.getElementById("post-34601-blankimage").onload();

Last Wednesday night was cold and rainy in Los Angeles, but the streets of Hollywood were green. Crowded outside the legendary Avalon Hollywood, the green glitterati walked the artificial green grass carpet to party the night away at the 7th Annual Global Green Pre-Oscar bash.

Together with a host committee including James Cameron and Suzy Amis Cameron, the party was dubbed “Greener Cities for a Cooler Planet.” The soiree focused on raising funds and awareness for Global Green’s national initiatives to fight climate change. And witness to it all was this writer, planted right in the middle of the green carpet, sporting organic makeup and styled hair from Primrose Organics Salon and bedecked in my Carol Young Undesigned finest.

And just who tripped the light green-tastic by me that night? Serena Williams, Mel B, Nicole Scherzinger, Nia Vardalos, Juliette Lewis, Radha Mitchell worked the red, ahem, green carpet. Radha Mitchell (after patiently listening to me gush about her performance in “High Art” – she’s awesome) shared with me her excitement about spending the evening with like minded folk. Jessica Alba and husband Cash Warren rushed by under a shared umbrella. Anna Getty talked to us about her upcoming cookbook, Anna Getty’s “Easy Green Organic.” And eco-expert Zem Joaquin showed off her Deborah Lindquist dress and eco-friendly jewelry.

Prior to stepping onto the green carpet, celebs and guests recorded an online video PSA entitled “I Am.” (This will soon be released by Global Green.) Written by environmentalist and famed TV writer (Thirtysomething, anyone?) Marshall Herskovitz, the PSA will “Raise awareness of the threats posed by global climate change to more than 150 million Americans and more than 2.75 billion globally,” according to Global Green.

Guests were also treated to a look at the new Chevy Volt Plug-In Electric Vehicle, to be publicly available by the end of the year. It can travel up to 40 miles on electric charge – and check this out, you can plug it into any old plug! Other sponsors of the event were Pureology, 360 Vodka, LACarGUY, Alternative Apparel, Centropolis and Newton Vineyard, among others.

Once inside, the guests were treated to cosmetic treatments by Purelogy and organic t-shirt screenings by (who else?) Alternative Apparel. They rocked it out to music by Benji and Joel Madden, Mia Maestro and Juliette Lewis. Suzy Amis Cameron’s previewed the eco-friendly couture she will wear Oscar night.

Matt Petersen, Global Green USA President and CEO, said, “By raising awareness about the threats posed by climate change and by holding our corporate and political leaders accountable, we can make a real difference. Americans can and must do something about climate change, and we can start by creating green buildings, schools, cities and communities that create green jobs, save money and improve our health.”

You can check out all the green folks talking Global Green with me at cocoeco magazine’s Youtube page.

Photos: Courtesy of Wire Image

James and Suzy Amis Cameron walk the green carpet

Jessica Alba, Cash Warren, Benji and Joel Madden of Good Charlotte party at the Global Green Pre-Oscar Party

Party goers rock out to Good Charlotte

document.getElementById("post-34474-blankimage").onload();

The poor French. There they were, with their low-rent bistros slinging brie-filled crepes, soupe a l’oignon and coq au vin when all the populace really wanted was rectangular food-like objects that taste vaguely of chicken, and a side of corn syrup dipping sauce.

But then the good ol’ U S of A came to the rescue! The American government graciously provided a struggling business called McDonald’s with $465,000 to promote Chicken McNuggets abroad.

That’s right, your tax dollars brought the culinary masterpiece that is Chicken McNuggets to Europe through the Market Access Program, which uses public funding to help U.S. industries promote their products overseas. McDonald’s qualified to receive nearly half a million dollars through the Poultry and Egg Council to promote a product that has no less than 40 ingredients, only one of which is chicken (even in the new, less filler-packed recipe).

The fast food giant only made $985.5 million in profits last year. How can we possibly expect them to continue their quest for world domination without some government funding?

The $465,000 figure comes from a book by Jonathan Rauch called Government’s End: Why Washington Stopped Working, which details the vice grip that special interest groups have on the American government. The book is 10 years old, and it’s tough to discern whether McDonald’s has received any more taxpayer funds, though the program does put a five-year limit (not necessarily consecutive) on promotional assistance for branded products.

What could that $465,000 done if it hadn’t gone to McDonald’s? Built a playground in an underprivileged neighborhood, or injected some healthier foods into school lunches? It’s not as if Europeans are any better off for the U.S. factory-farmed chicken, modified food starch and Dimethylpolysiloxane added to their diets.

Photo: basykes

document.getElementById("post-34401-blankimage").onload();

When historians look back on the fall of the American Empire, the Hummer may well serve as the symbol of cultural excess that brought down the once great nation. The Romans got gout and fell over from guzzling wine in lead pots; we bellied up to the gas pumps sucking down the sweet oily nectar that would flow forever.

If ever there was an apologue for the gilded anything-goes Clinton era, it is the Hummer. Hell, the car’s name itself calls to mind images of stripper-laden rap videos, $1,000 bottles of Cristal, cigars and teenage fantasies involving interns, corridors of power and sullied dresses.

Seemingly created for a real-time-action movie starring the Terminator himself, the Hummer was originally a military vehicle made famous in Desert Storm where some 20,000 of the vehicles helped display American might, showing the world once and for all, we make the rules when it comes to fighting wars in the Middle East.

Those days – and the Hummer marque – are long gone. GM announced that a deal to sell the brand to a Chinese manufacturer collapsed and it would begin to wind down the division unless another magical suitor has $150 million to burn. Ironically, the primary reason the Chinese government wouldn’t approve the deal was due to environmental concerns.

And the greenies rejoiced!

(Although, please keep in mind, 3,000 American jobs will be affected. As Bruce Springsteen said about his hometown, “Foreman says the jobs are going boys and they ain’t coming back.”)

In some ways, the Hummer already feels like a relic from another era. A vehicular charade from a time when play-acting weekend solider was a rich man’s hobby, and 5,363 American troops hadn’t lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even Arnold Schwarzenegger himself bailed on the brand in 2006, and only 9,000 were sold in 2009. GM kept scaling them down, but the “efficient” H3 and its 15-mpg never captured the collective “love it or leave it” imagination like the original H1, and remaindered Hummers have been collecting cobwebs at dealerships ever since.

Does this mean Americans have become more responsible in their car-buying ways?

Well, Ford announced January SUV sales were up 8%. Alas.

The end of Hummer is a business decision, nothing else. But as far as symbolism goes, it’s a good day for common automotive sense.

There isn’t a lot to be said for the Hummer and one suspects it will die a quiet death, a lot quieter than the sounds of Earth being chewed-up by a pointless egotistical six-figure S.U.V. that should have been buried in the desert long ago, anyway.

In the end, there’s only one thing to be said about the Hummer.

Hasta la vista, baby.

document.getElementById("post-34018-blankimage").onload();

Climate change is nonsense.

If I’m ever lucky enough to bump into millionaire Donald Trump (say at a real estate sale or divorce court), I will rush up to the man and shake his hand. He’s opened my eyes to this global warming hoax once and for all. Addressing an audience of 500 admirers at the Trump National Golf Club (Westchester, N.Y.), he uttered these immortal words:

With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore…Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally non-competitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.

I bet those countries aren’t laughing now!

But if there’s one person who does look stupid, it’s me. All these years believing in the power of science, logic, reasoned argument and differentiating between weather and climate, and now the Donald’s blown that baloney into the weeds. But I can take it – after all, I’d rather get my story correct than support some thoughtless populist prejudice designed to further the political agendas of self-serving elites. Don, you’re the man.

But I want more from our Gore-slaying guru of truthiness. I want him to explain the specifics. What say you to these thorny issues, Mr. Trump?

1. Increasingly extreme weather. Any fool can see that the earth can’t be warming up if it’s snowing! So what is causing all this weird weather right now? There’s only one rational conclusion: the earth must be cooling down. (I’m blaming all these wind turbines, it’s like global air-con).

2. Crops are on the run. Guatemalan coffee growers are moving their plantations, claiming that climbing temperatures are putting their livelihoods at risk. Scottish soft fruit is in danger of getting squished. Indian farmers are insuring themselves against crop failure. To them all I say – what’s wrong with tinned food? This loose food fad has to stop sometime, might as well be now. (And don’t get me started on that organic rubbish).

3. The mountains are thawing. The glaciers are melting on Everest and the Himalayan snows are turning into lakes. What’s that about, Don? No, I’ve got it – summer’s coming! Of course. These things are so obvious if you spend the time to really think them through.

4. The seas are rising. The island chain of the Maldives is sliding beneath the waves, and its inhabitants are responding with heavy investment in a zero-carbon economy. Heavy. See what I’m saying? The heavier it is, the less it floats. (Pro tip, guys: use coal, it gets lighter the more you use it).

5. The ice-caps are melting. The Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up (here’s the latest from the US Geological Survey), making the oceans rise twice as fast as they were doing in the 1970s. The summer polar ice cap is 20% reduced from its 1979 coverage. Where’s it all going? It’s this snow we’re having! Gotcha. The ice isn’t melting, it’s just moving around! Give it a few years and it’ll be right back at the poles again, you’ll see.

Am I on the right track, Don?

Image: Trump Ice Skating Rink in Central Park, New York, by James Trosh

document.getElementById("post-34246-blankimage").onload();

There’s nothing like the big screen to bring home the message of green, namely that our home is in peril. Or, as Michael Ruppert forecasts in Collapse (2009), on the brink of total ruin.

Then again, even the small screen can make a dent with viewers if the message is as compelling as the gruesome one in the extraordinary documentary, The Cove. All eyes were on activist Ric O’ Barry as he strapped a monitor on his chest and barged into an IWC convention playing horrific footage of the dolphin slaughter in Japan. Shocking stuff, yes. That’s ecotainment!

Screen and green go together like popcorn and Junior Mints, and that is why several films in the running for the most coveted prize in Hollywood appeal to our sense of survival as a species – one that sprang from a simple and pure beginning before industrialization began eroding what we treasure the most.

Take Avatar, James Cameron’s 3D odyssey which is among 10 best picture nominees vying for Oscar at the March 7 Academy Awards. It follows the saga of a vicious military machine from an ecologically-destroyed earth setting its sights on the distant planet, Pandora, which possesses a desirable mineral that can provide an alternative energy source. The story mirrors the shameful Native American experience of decimation by conquering imperialists with 10 times the modern weaponry of bows and arrows, thirsty for land acquisition at any human cost. How many times have we seen the same plot relived on the global stage?

The astounding production shot by Cameron with virtual cameras was so far-reaching, it even moved Palestinian protesters in Jerusalem to dress up like the fictional blue Na’vi aliens to combat Israel’s separation barrier. No matter where you stand politically, this film resonates with the historic experience of the displacement of indigenous populations.

Among the other environmental message films getting the nod at the 82nd annual Academy Awards:

Up, an Disney Pixar animated adventure that takes off when a 78-year-old balloon salesman and a chubby 8-year-old boyscout ride a balloon-powered bucket to the South American jungle, navigated with the tools of  little Russell’s “Wilderness Explore GPS” and the old man’s good common sense. They end up outwitting the villain who is trying to harm a flightless mother bird the boy names Kevin, and in the end they return the bird to her chicks and save the species from extinction.

Two eco exposes, Food Inc. and The Cove, are up for best documentary. Both are raw, daring endeavors on the part of the film makers who went to great lengths to reveal foul cover-ups in food production.

Food, Inc., the product of a growing food justice movement in the United States, explains why we are “hungry for change.” It is considered one of the most talked about films of the year, a painful chronicle of the inhumane agriculture industry and a strong case for sustainable, ethically raised beef and farm food versus ignorance and greed.

The Cove reminds us that in “the Greek era it was punishable by death to kill a dolphin,” and begs the question, “What is going on here?” Here, is Taiji, Japan, where an annual bloodbath involving the spear hacking of 23,000 adult dolphins and their young is covered up by a government protecting the fishing industry and the $150,000 made on “show dolphins.” Fishermen trapping and killing schools of dolphins are told they are eradicating “pests” who are eating up the fish supply. Meantime, the Japanese public is duped into believing the mercury-laced protein is actually “safe” whale meat.

In seeking to inform the public about these appalling realities (most Japanese consumers don’t even know about the dolphin slaughter), the makers of The Cove tell us, “By destroying anything in nature we are taking away from ourselves, and we are losing it all at a horrifying rate.”

Will Oscar-winning films slow down that rate? At least, they probe deeper than the usual screen fodder – gratuitous sex and violence – by opening our eyes to our own culpability in allowing downer meat, dolphin murder, deforestation and displacement of indigenous peoples. Sometimes the subject matter is so engrossing, you are motivated to take action once the screen goes dark by writing a letter to your senator, the USDA or Prime Minster of Japan.

My own 10-year-old ran to her room after viewing The Cove and made a poster saying, “Save the dolphins, we want blue water, not red!” It gives a whole new meaning to the term moving pictures.

Imges: Oscars, Luanne Bradley

// < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ document.write('Your request is being processed...'); // ]]>Your re

document.getElementById("post-33450-blankimage").onload();

Boeing must think radioactive waste is mighty tasty. After all, they’ve allowed plenty of it to sit at one of their research facilities and seep into the surrounding community. So naturally, some students who want the company to clean up its toxic mess at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory thought that offering a bribe of ‘meltdown morsels’ and other radioactive sweets might do the trick.

But the “Teens Against Toxins”, a group of tenth-graders at Oak Park High School in Southern California, must have realized that what Boeing wants above all is money, since the company recently filed a civil lawsuit in an attempt to get out of paying for cleanup of the site. They held a “bake sale meltdown” and presented the company, which made over $68 billion last year, with a gigantic check for the proceeds. The grand total? $99.31.

Shocker: Boeing didn’t show up to accept the money. After 30 minutes of waiting around outside the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, the students, some parents and community members were informed that a Boeing spokesperson was camera-shy and that as a private company, Boeing can’t accept donations.

The 2,859-acre Santa Susana Field Laboratory was once home to 10 nuclear reactors, which experienced a partial meltdown in 1959 when it was run by Rocketdyne. Thirty years later, an environmental survey revealed shocking toxic and radioactive contamination. Boeing bought the site in 1996 and shut it down in 2006.

A state senate bill passed in 2007 set strict cleanup standards for the site, which is set to eventually become state parkland. But a Boeing spokesperson told MichaelMoore.com that the law “singles out the site to meet cleanup requirements that go far beyond what is required to protect citizens elsewhere in California under generally applicable state law.”

Apparently those delicious Uranium Cakes and Peanut Butter Plutonium Treats were just too bitter for Boeing to swallow – but it’s okay if everyone else eats them.

Image: lavocado

document.getElementById("post-33978-blankimage").onload();

Facebook is the second largest website in the US and the default social network of many environmental activists, where they (ok, we) go to develop supportive networks, raise awareness and funds for good causes. It’s also a platform for some excellent, environmental-fundraising games like Lil’ Green Patch (acquired by social games company Playdom in 2009) and Sea Garden (a MobScience game).

Obviously the environmental community, on and off Facebook, felt betrayed when the social media leader, in late January, announced its plans to build a data center in Prineville, Oregon that will be contrarily LEED-gold certified, yet run on coal power.

Yes, coal – that’s lump in your stocking, fine particles in the air and lungs, carbon dioxide-emitting coal.

Facebook’s data center electricity provider in Oregon will be PacifiCorp., a utility that is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, and generates most of its power from coal according to reports by SearchDataCenter.

The information and communications technology sector, according to Gartner research, is already as bad as and quickly surpassing the aviation industry in terms of global CO2 emissions. Why would Facebook – which has enjoyed a reputation as a game changer, and innovator – make the ICT sector worse, by going with the fuel that the Natural Resources Defense Council identifies as a top source of mercury pollution in the U.S., and a health threat to all who live near coal power plants?

End users do like free, or ad-sponsored Facebook. And coal power remains cheaper than cleaner alternatives like natural gas, or hydroelectric power (which has its own problems including damaging fish populations and rivers). But Facebook has said in a series of interviews that it focused on building an efficient data center, rather than the source of power it will use. We’re surprised an industry leader thought one good thing was good enough.

Is it unreasonable to ask Facebook to offer its services free to end users, but to buy more expensive, green power? Or, given their lack of environmental responsibility on this one, would you be willing to abandon your Facebook profile entirely?

Basic Reading:

“Criticism from Greenpeace and Change.org has attracted national attention within the information technology industry, catching Facebook off guard. ‘This has been a big learning experience for us,’ said Facebook spokeswoman Kathleen Loughlin. ‘We’re six years old. We’ve never owned a data center before. We’ve never owned land before…The energy source is one factor,’ Loughlin said, ‘but how we’re going to use that energy is another equally important, if not more important, factor to consider.’” A news feature by Mike Rogoway for The Oregonian

“After having rented out data center space in Silicon Valley and elsewhere for years, Facebook is now building its own data center in scenic Prineville, located in central Oregon. It’s a symbolic step for the company, which started out on an $80/month shared server just under six years ago.” – An InsideFacebook article detailing some of the efficient features planned for the company’s new data center

“For the first time Facebook will have its own facility but unlike Google or Microsoft, which both built data centers in the same area running off hydroelectric power, Facebook’s facility will be powered by dirty coal…” - An anti-coal petition from Change.org to Facebook’s CEO, with about 8,000 signatures as of Feb. 25, 2010

“The only truly green data centers are the ones running on renewable energy…Given the massive amounts of electricity that even energy-efficient data centers consume to run computers, backup power units, and power related cooling equipment, the last thing we need to be doing is building them in places where they are increasing demand for dirty coal-fired power.” – GreenPeace press officer Daniel Kessler via a HuffingtonPost op-ed

Further Resources:

“Coal accounts for a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide,” reported in the New York Times‘ Green Inc. blog

A story on the waste problems created by coal power plants in B’More Green

A round-up of some of the green IT practices and technologies used by tech giants including Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook from Earth2Tech

Ironically, last April, Intel called for users to submit ideas via Facebook video submission about How to Green Data Centers, via Treehugger

A “clean coal” debunking site ThisIsReality.org that includes a public service announcement ad created by the Coen brothers

Image: Nick Perla

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and trends by EcoSalon writer and columnist Lora Kolodny.

document.getElementById("post-33977-blankimage").onload();

E-readers are spineless compared with hardcover books, lacking the soulful carbon fingerprints of readers past. You cannot fold the pages of the wafer-thin gadgets, or make your mark with splotches of food or wine. And the idea of clutching the casing to your chest after reading the final line of a novel just leaves me cold. As one book club friend of mine waxes, “There’s just something about the smell of a book.”

Still, we all can smell and see the writing is on the screen when it comes to these devices outsourcing print media, sparing trees and saving money. According to ID TechEx, the total market size in 2010 is a whopping $131 million, and is expected to soar to $1.7 billion by 2014. Much of that growth is attributed to huge success of Kindles and other portable e-readers. “In 2020, the market value will reach $7.45 billion thanks to the availability of flexible, color displays and faster refresh rates,” the market analysts predict.

Why do users find them so friendly?

“I bought one for my wife for her birthday and enlarged the fonts so she can read the words on the screen without squinting or wearing reading glasses,” says Steve Montoya, a Bay Area IT consultant. “She’s an avid reader. Recently, she read a series she couldn’t get in e-print, and couldn’t wait to finish it and get back to her Kindle.”

While you can’t download all desirable titles now, the Amazon library and others are growing every day.

“You can get books, magazines, newspapers, even audio books to listen to with headphones,” Montoya says.

The graphite feature also is a huge power saver, he finds, noting you can get several days of reading on one charge. And since it works on a cellular network, it also makes it easy to instantaneously order books and have them appear on your library. Plus, the e-readers never seem to lose connection.

“My brother-in-law is in Afghanistan and his iPhone doesn’t work, but his Kindle does,” says Montoya.

If the prequel of our paperless future is the tragic death of magazines and newspapers, will the sequel be the disappearance of paperback and hardcover reads? Are there upsides to this plot? Here are some of the pros and cons of e-reading devices:

Cost

Pro: If you are a voracious reader without a library card, you probably will save money on an e-reader. If you are a voracious reader with a library card, you probably will save on late fees.

Con: You have to spend a lot for the cheapest iPad, which is wifi-only, holds 16GB of storage and sells for nearly $500. The Que is $649 and has a 4GB of data storage. The 3G wireless Amazon Kindle is more affordable at $250.

Storage

Pro: When the Kindle was introduced in 2007, travelers loved the benefits of of storing up to 1,500 books on a device the size of a small paperback read. And the library of available books to download keeps expanding (the first chapter of any book is free). Let’s face it, we are a storage-challenged human race with too much junk and not enough apartment and home space. This eliminates the need for shelving.

Con: Our private libraries are important for sharing with our friends and children and passing down treasured collections – classics and complementary fiction that rocked our world. Plus, it’s a lot easier to lose a gadget than an entire dusty collection.

Green

Pro: Many green publications, including Inhabitat, sing the praises of e-readers because they ultimately aid the environment by requiring no deforestation to manufacture, compared to the traditional paper publishing industry. This doesn’t even include the energy, materials, dyes and carbon from shipping that shames the print industry. According to a study by Cleantech, the carbon emitted in the lifecycle of  a Kindle, for example, is fully offset after the first year. And more earth-friendly models are on the move, like LG’s Solar ebook introduced last year, boasting a thin photovoltaic cell which keeps the juice pumping so your novel won’t go kaput during the climax.

Con: What is being offered is a new thing to buy, to keep you busy on the subway. High tech by nature is incompatible with green with exceptions such as solar panels, which also require an investment in energy to make. Green means a return to what your grandparents did, a return to simplicity: Walk a few blocks to school and work. Open a book on your front porch and snooze. That’s 18th Century technology. Also, the effectiveness of reducing emissions by popularizing these gadgets is dependent upon the publishing industry standardizing its adoption of the technology while committing to cutting down the production of physical books and other print media. Is this likely to happen anytime soon, other than by default?

Convenience

Pro: Toss the paper thin, lightweight, wireless device in your bag and you’re good to go. The new generation of Kindles is lighter than a paperback at 6″ and 10.2 oz. and you can hold it with one hand, which aids those carpal tunnel issues. This is why so many e-readers are the new companions of commuters. Hopefully, driving laws will keep users from biting into New Moon while behind the wheel. If you thought texting was was a dangerous distraction while driving…

Con: The tactile experience of gripping a book, magazine or Sunday paper can outweigh the fact it might be heavier to lug. It is this experience that is woven into our cultural wiring. No matter how hard technology tries, the tendency for consumers to prefer print over e-readers will endure for many years to come. With regard to our cultural connection to books, a graduate student at the University of Toronto wrote that his first experiences with a reader felt like “a courageous betrayal of every word written from the moment papyrus gave way to paper.”

Connection

Pro: We are a society that needs to stay connected now more than ever. In terms of signal range, e-readers never seem to drop out.

Con: Losing connection might be easier on the eyes. Having your head in a book just isn’t the same as having your peepers fixed on a screen for hours of pleasure reading. Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS) cases are rising in people looking for relief from fatigue, strain and irritation caused by focusing on worlds and images on a surface without well-defined edges contrasted against backgrounds. Eyes simply respond better to most printed text of bold black letters on a bright, white background.

Images: E-readers

document.getElementById("post-33764-blankimage").onload();

We’ve all had that moment of realization, walking through a lonely parking lot or waiting at a dimly lit subway station at night: “I’m extremely vulnerable right now.”  And while some of us are certified bad-asses, most of us rely on little more than our wits, common sense and perhaps a can of pepper spray.

We want to take advantage of all the conveniences and environmental benefits of public transit, but we often don’t feel safe doing so. What gives? To find out, Planetizen spoke to UCLA’s Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, author of a recent study that revealed that transit agencies are failing to involve women in the planning process.

Regardless of what the statistics may be of crimes committed on and around public transit systems, the fact is that women often feel unsafe, and Loukaitou-Sideris says it all boils down to needs that aren’t being met. Loukaitou-Sideris’ study found that women are much more scared waiting at the bus stop or transit station than within the transit vehicle itself, yet most transportation agencies only focus safety resources on the vehicles.

“Women were also not comforted knowing that there was a camera or CCT technology,” Loukaitou-Sideris told Planetizen. “They were not against it, but they felt that if anything happened to them the camera would only help after the event, not during. So they were much more in favor of more policing, human solutions rather than technological solutions. Yet the trend is towards more technology, not less.”

That might have something to do with the fact that upper-level management at transit agencies is primarily made up of men, who have likely never been sexually harassed, groped or worse at the park-and-ride. The solution, says Loukaitou-Sideris, is for transit authorities to listen to what women have to say about safety.

“Transportation planners really need to look at women’s fears in transportation settings and know that there are things that they can do to if not completely eliminate but reduce these fears. These solutions involve policy, design, policing, and outreach and education.”

Image: lawmurray

document.getElementById("post-33592-blankimage").onload();